!TITLE:
Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy
!DATE:
27 January 1998
!CITE:
1998-1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it appears the administration is about to bomb Iraq. The stated reason is to force UN inspections of every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. The President’s personal problems may influence this decision, but a flawed foreign policy is behind this effort.
!CITE:
1998-1:2
Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense.
!CITE:
1998-1:3
There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of Presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council.
!CITE:
1998-1:4
But the President is getting little support and a lot of resistance from our allies for this aggressive action.
!CITE:
1998-1:5
Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein, unify the Islamic Fundamentalists and expose American citizens to terrorist attacks. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit to further stir the hatred and blame toward America for all the approximate he has inflicted on his people.
!TITLE:
State Of The Republic
!DATE:
28 January 1998
!CITE:
1998-2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the first session of the 105th Congress has been completed and the third year of the conservative revolution has passed. Current Congressional leadership has declared victory and is now debating on how to spend the excess revenues about to flow into the Treasury.
!CITE:
1998-2:2
As the legislative year came to a close, the only serious debate was over the extent of the spending increases negotiated into the budget. The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Control over the Congress is not seriously threatened, and there has been no clear-cut rejection of the 20th century welfare state. But that does not mean that there is no effort to change the direction of the country. It is just that it is not yet in progress.
!CITE:
1998-2:3
But many taxpayers throughout the country are demanding change, and today there are more people in Washington expressing a sincere desire to shrink the welfare state than there were when I left 13 years ago. The final word on this has not yet been heard.
!CITE:
1998-2:4
In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and endanger our national security and the republic while perpetuating the status quo.
!CITE:
1998-2:5
Following are some of the flaws or errors in thinking about issues that I find pervasive throughout the Congress:
!CITE:
1998-2:6
Foreign affairs. Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny.
!CITE:
1998-2:7
The economy, crime, the environment, drugs, currency instability, and many other problems are important. But it is in the area of foreign policy and for interventionism that provokes the greatest threat to our liberties and sovereignty. Whenever there are foreign monsters to slay, regardless of their true threat to us, misplaced patriotic zeal is used to force us to look outward and away from domestic problems and the infractions placed on our personal liberties here at home.
!CITE:
1998-2:8
Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world’s superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military industrial complex and world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:9
Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e., to kill Hussein; and any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of all places, Kuwait.
!CITE:
1998-2:10
A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States’ continued military presence in the Middle East.
!CITE:
1998-2:11
A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.”
!CITE:
1998-2:12
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.
!CITE:
1998-2:13
In spite of the reservations and reasons to go slow, the only criticism coming from congressional leaders was that Clinton should do more, quicker, without any serious thought as to the consequences, which would be many.
!CITE:
1998-2:14
The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations.
!CITE:
1998-2:15
These days, not even the United States moves without permission from the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the history of U–2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense Department.
!CITE:
1998-2:16
There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war like Vietnam or small ones with bad results like in Somalia.
!CITE:
1998-2:17
Individual freedom is always under attack; and once there is any serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to rally around the President, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger and not weaker after the Persian Gulf War.
!CITE:
1998-2:18
The role of the military industrial complex cannot be ignored; and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever.
!CITE:
1998-2:19
But there is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign policy is less hidden than it had been in the past. In referring to the United States in the international oil company success in the Caspian Sea, a Houston newspaper recently proclaimed, “U.S. views pipelines as a big foreign policy victory.”
!CITE:
1998-2:20
This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the pipelines would be cheaper but would not satisfy our international government planners.
!CITE:
1998-2:21
So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.
!CITE:
1998-2:22
This attitude, as pervasive as it is in Washington, is tempered by the people’s instincts for minding our own business, not wanting Americans to be the policemen of the world, and deep concern for American sovereignty. The result, not too unusual, is for the politicians in Washington to be doing one thing while saying something else at home.
!CITE:
1998-2:23
At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found.
!CITE:
1998-2:24
The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of Bosnia. Yet the President gets all the funding he wants. The Members of Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, the President, the military industrial complex, and the special interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-2:25
Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:26
Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict.
!CITE:
1998-2:27
In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by power, oil and money.
!CITE:
1998-2:28
America’s effort to prevent a million casualties in Rwanda does not anywhere compare to our perennial effort to get Hussein. It is hardly violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction that motivates us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-2:29
We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing.
!CITE:
1998-2:30
There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction.
!CITE:
1998-2:31
Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous because the history of the West’s intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists that guarantees that friction will persist in this region no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.
!CITE:
1998-2:32
As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If the UN’s plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom, and lives.
!CITE:
1998-2:33
Yes, I fear a biological and even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all factions instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all factions depending on the circumstances.
!CITE:
1998-2:34
The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.
!CITE:
1998-2:35
But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-2:36
American interests around the world could best be served by friendship and trade with all who would be friends, and subsidies to none.
!CITE:
1998-2:37
The balanced budget. There is a naive assumption in Washington that the budget is under control and will soon be balanced, while believing perpetual prosperity is here and new programs can now be seriously considered. It reminds me of an old Chinese saying, when words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:38
Even the revolutionaries have claimed victory. One of the staunchest Members recently declared, in the end we achieved a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. Medicare and welfare were reformed, all in three short years, a truly remarkable record on how far we have come.
!CITE:
1998-2:39
I can understand a positive spin on events of the last three years by party leaders. That is what party leaders do. But the revolutionary members of the 104th Congress should not be taken in easily or quickly. But Washington has a strange way of dulling the senses, and no one enjoys peer rejection or lonely fights, where one is depicted as pursuing a fruitless adventure and appearing negative. Capitulating to the status quo is the road of least resistance, and rationalizations are generously offered up.
!CITE:
1998-2:40
It has been especially tempting for Members of Congress to accept the projection of higher revenues as a panacea to our budgetary problems. The prevailing attitude in Washington as 1997 came to a close was that the limited government forces had succeeded. The conservative revolution has won, and now it is time to move on and make government work more efficiently.
!CITE:
1998-2:41
I am sure some know better, but the real reason for these declarations of budgetary success is for the sole purpose of maintaining power. Minority leaders find themselves frustrated because they know spending has gone up, and the higher tax revenues have helped those in charge.
!CITE:
1998-2:42
The Republican Congress and President Clinton benefited, while the Democratic Congressional leaders could only ask why can’t more be spent on welfare if the country is doing so well? Fundamental problems like the size of the budget, the deficit, the debt, higher taxes, currency problems and excessive regulations were put on the back burner, if not ignored altogether.
!CITE:
1998-2:43
While complacency regarding foreign policy sets the stage for danger overseas, this naive attitude regarding the budget and the deficit is permitting the welfare state to be reenergized and cancel entirely any efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.
!CITE:
1998-2:44
Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.
!CITE:
1998-2:45
It is not going to happen. 1997 has proven what many have suspected, that reversing or arresting a welfare state cannot occur by majority vote. With apparent wealth abundance in the United States, the reversal assuredly will not come with ease. Once redistribution of wealth is permitted by the democratic vote, destruction of production will occur before the majority will choose to curtail their own benefits.
!CITE:
1998-2:46
The end is closer than most realize, considering the optimistic rhetoric coming from Washington, plus the fact the majority of citizens are beneficiaries of the system, and even the producers have grown dependent on government protection, grants, contracts and special subsidies.
!CITE:
1998-2:47
Although the session ended on a modestly happy bipartisan note, I suspect in time 1997 will be looked upon as a sad year, in that the limited government revolution of 1994 was declared lost by adjournment time in November.
!CITE:
1998-2:48
That does not mean the fight for liberty is over, but the hope that came by reversing Congressional rule after 40 years has been dampened and a lot more work is necessary for success. The real battle is to win the hearts and minds of Americans outside of Washington to prepare the country for the day when the welfare state ceases to function due to an empty treasury and the dollar, not worth its weight, comes under attack.
!CITE:
1998-2:49
Specifics worth pondering: The budget for current fiscal year 1998 calls for expenditures of $1.69 trillion, or $89 billion above last year. The 1997 budget was $22 billion over 1996. The so-called balanced budget bragged about is to occur in the year 2002, with more cuts being made in the year 2001 and a level of spending far above today’s. The expenditures in the year 2002 are expected to increase to $1.9 trillion, over $200 billion more than this year.
!CITE:
1998-2:50
Increased revenues obviously accomplish the job of a theoretically balanced budget, but also these projections do not take into account the huge sums borrowed from Social Security. Even if things go well and as planned, the optimism is based on deception, wishful thinking and a huge raid on the Social Security and other trust funds. In spite of this, the politicians in Washington are eagerly planning on how to spend the coming budgetary surpluses.
!CITE:
1998-2:51
All these rosy projections are dependent on economic strength, steady low interest rates, and no supplemental appropriations. Every session of Congress gets supplementals, and if the economy takes a downturn, the higher the appropriation.
!CITE:
1998-2:52
The last three years are not much to brag about. Domestic spending has gone up by $183 billion. In the prior three years, when Democrats controlled the Congress, spending increased by $155 billion. Tax increases are now inevitably referred to as revenue enhancement and closing of loopholes.
!CITE:
1998-2:53
In spite of some wonderful IRS bashing by nearly everyone and positive hearings in exposing the ruthless tactics of the IRS, Congress and the President saw fit to give the IRS a whopping $729 million increase in its budget, hoping the IRS will become more efficient in their collection procession. Real spending cuts are not seriously considered.
!CITE:
1998-2:54
Congress continues to obfuscate by calling token cuts in previously proposed increases as budget cuts. The media and the proponents of big government and welfare obediently demagogue this issue by decrying why the slashes in the budget are inhumane and uncaring.
!CITE:
1998-2:55
Without honesty in language and budgeting, true reforms are impossible. In spite of the rhetoric, bold new educational and medical programs were started, setting the stage for massive new spending in the future. New programs always cost more than originally projected. The block grant approach to reform did not prompt a decrease in spending, and frequently added to it. The principle of whether or not the Federal Government should even be involved in education, medicine, welfare, farming, et cetera, was not seriously considered.
!CITE:
1998-2:56
The 1998 budget is the largest ever and represents the biggest increase in the domestic budget in eight years. Those in charge threw in the towel and surrendered all efforts this past year to cut back the size of government. In this fiscal year, many concede the deficit will actually go up, even without a slowing in the economy.
!CITE:
1998-2:57
In this year’s budget, Medicare and Medicaid increased four to five times the rate of inflation. This is not a complete surprise to the logical skeptics when it comes to fiscal matters, but it is just a little exasperating to hear the positive pronouncements of current leaders who just a few years ago would have been only too eager to point out the shortcomings of deceptive arithmetic.
!CITE:
1998-2:58
Power is a corrupting influence, but, for now, at least, a Congressional power shift is not in the making. There are still a lot of recipients that are happily reassured that additional revenues can be found. The new management is welcomed, and it is hoped the new guys on the block can salvage for a while a system that many deep down in their hearts are convinced is not manageable for much longer.
!CITE:
1998-2:59
There is a sense of relief the welfare state has received a reprieve. One can almost hear the sigh amplified by hearing of the problems in the Southeast Asia countries with their currency and stock market problems, not realizing it is the U.S. taxpayers and the dollar that will be called upon for the bailout of this financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-2:60
The great danger of all of this is the false sense of economic security Congress feels, that has prompted total abandonment of efforts to actually cut any spending and with plans being laid for spending increases.
!CITE:
1998-2:61
The message is this: The politicians will never limit spending, but, eventually, the market will. It has already done so in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.
!CITE:
1998-2:62
The international currency crisis: Congress lacks concern and understanding of the significance of the Asian currency crisis. Monetary policy has never excited many Members of the Committee on Banking, let alone other members of Congress. A handful of Members do consistently complain to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but inevitably it is to object to the high interest rates and not enough credit being available to either the poor or the rich beneficiaries of Central Bank credit largesse.
!CITE:
1998-2:63
The Southeast Asian currency and economic bailout will exceed $100 billion. We will be propping up these currencies by sending American taxpayers’ dollars, the same thing we did in Mexico in 1995. Multilateral efforts through the IMF, World Bank and other development banks are used, and in each one the United States is the most generous donor.
!CITE:
1998-2:64
IMF bailouts, just as our military foreign intervention, are generally supported by the leadership of both parties. The establishment has firm control in these two areas and who, out of ignorance or neglect, the Congress as a whole provides little resistance. When the stronger currencies, in this case the dollar, props up a weaker currency, it is nothing more than an example of an international transfer of payment that helps our banks and international corporate investors who have financial exposure in the country or currency under attack.
!CITE:
1998-2:65
These bailouts will work, to some degree, until the dollar itself comes under attack. Our relatively strong economy and the current perceptions of undue dollar strength allows great leverage in this extremely expensive and risky bailout operation.
!CITE:
1998-2:66
The genius of it all is that Federal Reserve credit expansion and its off-budget budgeting permits these funds to be spent without oversight. IMF appropriations are not even counted toward the deficit, and credit expansion is under complete control of the Federal Reserve.
!CITE:
1998-2:67
Long-term, the average American citizen suffers through higher interest rates, rising prices, recessions and lower standard of living, but the cause and effect is conveniently hidden from the public and the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-2:68
After the Mexican bailout, her citizens lost 50 percent of their purchasing power, a dramatic pay cut. Yet the great danger is that some day we will be forced to pay, possibly with a dollar crisis that will make the Asian currency crisis look small in comparison.
!CITE:
1998-2:69
All currency crises are serious and usher in economic and political problems for the country involved, and since no one likes it, blame is generally misplaced.
!CITE:
1998-2:70
When the dollar comes under attack, since it is the reserve currency of the world, a much more serious crisis than we are currently witnessing in Asia will occur. Only a universal acceptance of a single worldwide commodity standard of money can prevent these periodic devaluations and disruptions in trade that are so prevalent today.
!CITE:
1998-2:71
The day before we adjourned the first session of the 105th Congress, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held hearings on the Asian currency crisis, but it was more an attempt to reassure the financial community than to sort out the cause and do something about it.
!CITE:
1998-2:72
Instead, the dollar was crowned king, and Greenspan promised stability. Our real interest rates, balance of payments, our current account deficit and budgetary deficits were conveniently ignored, because if they had been looked at seriously, it would have been recognized that the U.S. and the world faces a major financial crisis once the dollar can no longer be used to bail out the world financial system.
!CITE:
1998-2:73
Currency issues are serious and a much bigger problem than Congress realizes. Even the Fed has convinced itself it is quite capable of managing our fiat currency and our financial markets through any crisis. The money managers are every bit as powerful as the Congress, which taxes and spends, but the Federal Reserve’s actions are much less scrutinized.
!CITE:
1998-2:74
But when push comes to shove, the markets always win out. Interest rates are less than one percent in Japan, but have not prompted borrowers to come forth nor bankers to lend. The proposed $25 billion injection by the Bank of Japan will not solve the problem either. Even central bankers cannot push on a string.
!CITE:
1998-2:75
The sad part is that all these shenanigans will cause undue suffering to the innocent who lose their jobs, suffer from price inflation and see their standard of living shrink.
!CITE:
1998-2:76
Eventually, everyone though is threatened by the political disruption that can ensue with a currency mishap. Our greatest concern should be for our loss of liberties that so often accompany a currency crisis. Congressional attitude toward monetary policy is not likely to change soon, so we can expect a lot more turmoil in the currency markets in the months ahead.
!CITE:
1998-2:77
Two special areas. Congress in the past year capitulated in two significant areas by not only failing to cut spending, but massively increasing government’s role in medicine and in education. House Republicans bragged that 7 out of 8 educational initiatives passed the House, many of them being quite expensive. Charter schools cost over $100 million, funding for vouchers was increased, $3 billion was appropriated to extend student loans, and a new $210 million reading in excellence program was initiated. A program for high-tech training and one designed to help children with disabilities was also started.
!CITE:
1998-2:78
Clinton’s new health care program for children was accepted by Congress, which will eventually cost billions and further centralize medical care in Washington, while quality of care is diminished. Billions of dollars increased in NIH, AIDS research and preventative health care were also approved.
!CITE:
1998-2:79
The Federal Government has been involved in education and medicine more than in any other domestic area. This has caused a serious price inflection for these two services, while undermining the quality and results in both. The more we spend, the higher the cost, the worse the service, and the greater the regulations. So what did Congress do to solve the problems in the past year? Even in this so-called age of cutting back and a balanced budget, it expanded government precisely in the two areas that suffer the most from big government.
!CITE:
1998-2:80
This is strong evidence that we have not yet learned anything in the past 50 years, and the 1994 revolution has not yet changed things. We can expect more HMO’s and PPO mismanagement, rationing medical service and price control of all medical services. Shortages of quality health care and education will result.
!CITE:
1998-2:81
Devolution. Block grants are the popular vehicle to restore local control of the Federal bureaucracy. The housing bill, the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding through the block grant system of devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made in the early 1970s under Nixon called revenue-sharing. It did not work and was dropped.
!CITE:
1998-2:82
This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in Washington or in the State capitols, it will not change the dynamics of public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, cannot replace the benefits of private ownership. Besides, the block grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to the various State entities. Strings will always be attached no matter how many safeguards are written into the law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the Federal Government or even the State governments ought to be involved. The high hopes that this process will alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after many more years of failures and dollars spent.
!CITE:
1998-2:83
There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If the funding for the pornographic NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government should we expect to be? The devolution approach is not the proponents of big government’s first choice, but it is acceptable to them. Early adjournment meant the call for more spending was satisfied and the supporters of big government, in spite of the rhetoric, were content. Searching for a partisan issue, the minority was content with campaign reform and the questions surrounding illegal voting.
!CITE:
1998-2:84
Devolution is said to be a return to States rights since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
!CITE:
1998-2:85
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State.
!CITE:
1998-2:86
Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.
!CITE:
1998-2:87
After giving a short speech criticizing the inconsistency of our foreign policy, another Member quickly rose to his feet and used the Walter Emerson quote to criticize my efforts saying, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Criticizing another Member for following a consistent freedom philosophy and strict adherence to the Constitution is more of an attempt to reassure the critics themselves who are uneasy with their own position. Obviously, criticizing one for consistency either means that pragmatism and inconsistency is something to be proud of, or there is little respect for the philosophy that is consistently being defended, a truth the critics are not likely to admit.
!CITE:
1998-2:88
Public relation debates. Oftentimes the big debates in Congress are more public relation efforts than debates on real issues. This is certainly true when it comes to preventing foreign aid funds from being used by any organization for abortions. I agree with and vote for all attempts to curtail the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds for abortion within or outside the United States. But many in the pro-life movement are not interested in just denying all birth control, population control and abortion money to everyone, and avoid the very controversial effort to impose our will on other nations. Believing money allocated to any organization or country is not fungible is naive, to say the least. The biggest problem is that many who are sincerely right to life and believe the Mexico City language restriction on foreign aid will work are also philosophic believers in internationalism, both social and military.
!CITE:
1998-2:89
The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people.
!CITE:
1998-2:90
It is conceded by the majority on both sides of this debate that the U.N., the IMF, the development banks and even the funds for population control are legitimate expenditures and eventually will be funded. The question is only whether or not a public relations victory can be achieved by the radical pro-abortion supporters of the President’s or the pro-life supporters.
!CITE:
1998-2:91
We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction debate moot.
!CITE:
1998-2:92
Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.
!CITE:
1998-2:93
The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments.
!CITE:
1998-2:94
Corporatism. Congress and the administration is greatly influenced by corporate America. We truly have a system of corporatism that if not checked will evolve into a much more threatening form of fascism. Our welfare system provides benefits for the welfare poor and, in return, the recipients vote to perpetuate the entire system. Both parties are quite willing to continue the status quo in not questioning the authority upon which these programs are justified, but the general public is unaware of how powerful corporate America is in changing and influencing legislation. Even those programs said to be specific for the poor, like food stamps, housing, education and medicine, have corporate beneficiaries. These benefits to corporate America are magnified when it is realized that many of the welfare redistributionist programs are so often not successful in helping the poor.
!CITE:
1998-2:95
But there are many other programs precisely designed to satisfy the special interests of big business. A casual observer that might think the political party that champions the needs of the poor would not be getting political and financial support from the rich. But quite clearly, both parties are very willing to receive financial and political support from special interests representing the rich and the poor, business and labor, domestic and foreign.
!CITE:
1998-2:96
We should not expect campaign reform are reliable revelations of campaign fund-raising abuse in today’s political climate. There are strong bipartisan reasons to keep the debate on only a superficial level. All the rules in the world will never eliminate the motivation or the ability of the powerful special interests to influence Congress. Loopholes and illegal contributions will plague us for as long as Congress continues with the power to regulate, tax, or detax, or punishes essentially everyone participating in the economy.
!CITE:
1998-2:97
The most we can ever hope for is to demand full disclosure. Then, if influence is bought, at least it would be in the open. The other most difficult task, and the only thing that will ever dampen special interest control of government, would be to radically reduce the power of Congress over our lives and our economy. Taxpayer funding of campaigns would prove disastrous.
!CITE:
1998-2:98
The special areas of the budget that are of specific benefit to corporate America are literally too numerous to count, but there are some special programs benefiting corporations that usually prompt unconditional support from both parties. The military industrial complex is clearly recognized for its influence in Washington. This same group has a vested interest in our foreign policy that encourages policing the world, Nation building, and foreign social engineering. Big contracts are given to friendly corporations in places like Haiti, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf region. Corporations benefiting from these programs are unable to deal objectively with foreign policy issues, and it is not unusual for these same corporate leaders to lobby for troop deployments in worldwide military intervention. The U.S. remains the world’s top arms manufacturer and our foreign policy permits the exports to world customers subsidized through the Export-Import Bank. Foreign aid, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, IMF, World Bank, development banks are all used to continue bailouts of Third World countries heavily invested in by our corporations and banks. Corporations can get special tax treatment that only the powerful and influential can achieve. For instance, pseudo-free trade legislation like NAFTA and GATT and the recent Fast Track legislation shows how much big business influences both congressional leaders and the administration.
!CITE:
1998-2:99
While crumbs are cast to the poor with programs that promote permanent dependency and impoverishment, the big bucks go to the corporations and the banking elites. The poor welcome the crumbs, not realizing how much long-term harm the programs do as they obediently continue to vote for a corporate-biased welfare state where the rich get richer and the poor get forgotten. Since generally both parties support a different version of interventionism, one should not expect the programs for the rich to be attacked on principle or cut in size. The result of last year’s legislative session should surprise no one.
!CITE:
1998-2:100
Both types of welfare expenditures benefit from a monetary system that creates credit out of thin air in order to monetize congressional deficits when needed and manipulate interest rates downward to nonmarket levels to serve the interests of big borrowers and lenders. Federal Reserve policy is an essential element in serving the powerful special interests. Monetary mischief of this type will not likely be ended by congressional action, but will be eventually stopped by market forces, just as has recently occurred in the Far East.
!CITE:
1998-2:101
Voluntary contracts. There is little understanding or desire in Congress to consistently protect voluntary contract. Many of our programs to improve race relations have come from government interference in the voluntary economic contract. Government’s role in a free society should be to enforce contracts, yet too often it does the opposite. All labor laws, affirmative action programs and consumer protection laws are based on the unconstitutional authority of government to regulate voluntary economic contracts. If the same process were applied to the press, it would be correctly condemned as prior restraint and ruled unconstitutional.
!CITE:
1998-2:102
Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold society and improve personal moral behavior.
!CITE:
1998-2:103
But these same champions of personal liberty do not hesitate at all to use the same government force they readily condemn in social matters to impose their vision of a fair and equitable economic system on all of us.
!CITE:
1998-2:104
Thousands of laws and regulations are on the books to assure equality in hiring, pay, and numerous other conditions of employment and for theoretical consumer protection.
!CITE:
1998-2:105
Ironically, the enemies of the voluntary contract, when dealing with the media and personal associations, are the best defenders of economic liberty and the voluntary economic contract.
!CITE:
1998-2:106
Unless this glaring inconsistency is reconciled, the republic cannot be salvaged. Too often, the two sides compromise in the wrong direction. Economic libertarians concede too much to the welfare proponents and the social libertarians concede too much to the authoritarians who eagerly try to legislate good behavior. This willingness to compromise, while at the same time criticizing those who have firm beliefs as being overly rigid, serves as a serious threat to the cause of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:107
A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist legislation.
!CITE:
1998-2:108
Once government loses sight of its true purpose of protecting liberty and embarks on a course where the generous use of force is used to interfere in the voluntary social and economic contracts, liberty will be diminished and the foundation of a true republic undermined.
!CITE:
1998-2:109
That is where we are today. The effort on both sides to do “good” threatens personal liberty. There is no evidence that laws designed to improve personal sexual habits, the quality of the press or the plight of the poor have helped. The poor, under all programs of forced redistribution of wealth, always become more numerous. And the State inevitably abuses its power when it tries to regulate freedom of expression or improve personal behavior.
!CITE:
1998-2:110
Too often both sides allow the principle of government force to be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at a great cost and risk to American taxpayers, while accomplishing little except to promote a firm hatred of America for the interference. This itself is a threat to our security. The resulting conditions of international conflict are used as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties of all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-2:111
In recent years, freedom of the press has been severely challenged when we are actively involved in military operations. Our young people are threatened as they are needlessly exposed to enemy fire and medical experimentation and there is an economic cost through higher taxes.
!CITE:
1998-2:112
National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.
!CITE:
1998-2:113
Only with a greater understanding and respect for individual liberty and the importance of voluntary associations in all areas of social and economic life will we be able to preserve our liberty, peace and prosperity. This is required for the republic to survive.
!CITE:
1998-2:114
Congress reflects the nation’s current obsession with political correctness. The strange irony is that this whole movement has been encouraged by groups and individuals who in the past have been seen as the champions of free expression and civil liberties. These efforts to interfere with freedom of expression come from a desire to punish those in economic superior positions. Political correctness encourages promotions or firings for casual and rude statements once ridiculed by merely ignoring them. The age of victimization demands political correctness be carried to an illogical conclusion and the plan for perfect economic equality demands language that reflect these goals. It’s truly an area that reflects a complete lack of understanding of the principles of liberty and is an understandable result of this century’s division of liberty into two parts. The motive seems to be to make people better by forcing them to use only correct language and to provide special benefits to groups that are economically disadvantaged. It’s not uncommon to hear of people losing their jobs and reputation over harmless comments or telling off-colored jokes. Talk about discrimination, this is the worst.
!CITE:
1998-2:115
The concept of “hate crimes” is now enmeshed in all legislation. Pretending we can measure motivation and punish it is preposterous. Varying penalties, thus placing more value on one life than another, is a totalitarian idea.
!CITE:
1998-2:116
The political correctness movement and the concept of hate crimes will lead to laws against “hate speech.” Clearly the constitution is designed to protect protesters, even those who express hatred at times and is not limited to the protection of non-controversial speech. Freedom of expression is indeed under serious attack in this country. Already there are laws in two countries prohibiting even questioning the details of the Holocaust. In America that’s certainly not permitted under the rules of political correctness.
!CITE:
1998-2:117
Some still believe that “hate crimes” in America are limited to identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. But it’s scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.
!CITE:
1998-2:118
Whatever happened to the child’s logic of “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?” This basic philosophy offered a logical response to taunts by bullies. Today, the bully is the government which is determined to regulate, enforce, and imprison anyone who doesn’t tow the line of political correctness, multi-culturalism and follow government dictated social and economic rules.
!CITE:
1998-2:119
But why can’t we consider a solution that incorporates the healthy skepticism of those opposing government mandated V-chips and telephone monitoring devices with those who see the foolishness and danger of political correctness, especially seen when it comes to enforcing crimes against hate speech. Too often the same people who understand the hate crimes issue are the ones that believe government ought to be able to monitor our telephone and computer and censor television programming.
!CITE:
1998-2:120
This confusion is becoming structural and the longer it’s an accepted principle, the greater the threat to the Republic and our liberties.
!CITE:
1998-2:121
As long as it is fashionable or humorous to refer to one who consistently defends individual liberty as a “hobgoblin of little minds” our liberties will be threatened. Accepting and rationalizing any inconsistency while rejecting the principal defenders of a free society as impractical represents a danger to the republic. A strict adherence to the Constitution is surely not something that should be encouraged or tolerated, according to these critics.
!CITE:
1998-2:122
By insisting that all government action be guided by tolerance and compromise in any effort to protect liberty, it is only natural that strict observance to standards in other areas would be abandoned. And it is true, we now live in an age where life has relative value, money has no definition, marriage is undefinable, moral values are taught as relative ethics in our classrooms, good grades in the classroom no longer reflect excellence, success in business is often subjected to doubts because of affirmative action, and corporate profits depend more on good lobbyists in Washington than creative effort.
!CITE:
1998-2:123
Pragmatism and interventionism are popular because of their convenience and appeal to those who crave governing over others and those who expect unearned benefits. This process can last a long time when some incentives to produce remain in place. But eventually it leads to an attack on the value of money confiscatory taxation, over regulation, excessive borrowing on the future and undermining of trust in the political process. Once this system is entrenched, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to gracefully reverse the process.
!CITE:
1998-2:124
The usual result is the various groups receiving benefits become highly competitive and bitter toward each other. Eventually, it leads to a time when compromise and government planning no longer look practical nor fair. In the next few years, we can expect this to become more evident as Congress will be forced to acknowledge that the budget has more problems than was admitted to in the closing days of the first session of the 105th Congress.
!CITE:
1998-2:125
If we do not define the type of government we are striving for and reject interventionism as a doctrine, the endless debate will remain buried in details of form and degree of the current system with no discussion of substance. Merely deciding where to draw the line on government involvement in our lives will consume all the energy of the legislative process. Whether or not we should be involved at all will receive little attention.
!CITE:
1998-2:126
In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government’s responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with the President as saying, “I tell you, a decent society is not based on rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.”
!CITE:
1998-2:127
This sounds just a tad authoritarian and closer to the Communist Manifesto than to the Magna Carta or to the Bill of Rights.
!CITE:
1998-2:128
A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is the only “decent” society and the only one that I care to live in. A free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon which our republic rests.
!CITE:
1998-2:129
Yet today most of the West, now engulfed by Keynesian welfarism, sadly accepts the Blair philosophy. Duty and responsibility, as Blair sees it, is not the voluntary responsibility found in a free society but rather duty and responsibility to the State. He is right about one thing. If duty to the State is accepted as an uncontested fact, rights are meaningless. And everyday our rights are indeed becoming more threatened.
!CITE:
1998-2:130
We have come to accept it as immoral and selfish to demand individual rights. Today, rights are too frequently accepted as being collective, such as minority, gay, women, handicapped, poor, or student rights. But rights are only individual. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and property, and it comes naturally or is a God-given gift.
!CITE:
1998-2:131
The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone’s rights. The whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with the efforts ending in failure.
!CITE:
1998-2:132
National governments should exist to protect individual liberty at home by enforcing laws against violence and fraud and from outside threats. The bigger and more international government becomes, the more likely it is that the effort will fail.
!CITE:
1998-2:133
The original challenge to the champions of freedom centuries ago was always to limit the powers of the king. Today the challenge, every bit as great but harder to define, is to limit the power of democratic parliaments and congresses. Democratic elections of leaders is one thing, but obsession with determining all rights by majority vote has now become liberty’s greatest enemy.
!CITE:
1998-2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
!CITE:
1998-2:135
When government’s sole purpose is to protect the lowliest of the minority, the individual, there will be no market for influence buying. Regulating the peddlers of graft will only make things worse for the rules will further undermine the right of the individual to petition and seek his own redress of grievances.
!CITE:
1998-2:136
Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon which we have embarked.
!CITE:
1998-2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:138
The main motivation behind these mass murders was to maintain political power. Liberty in many ways has become the forgotten cause of the 20th century. Even the mildest mannered welfarist depends on government guns and threats of prison to forcefully extract wealth from producers to transfer it to the politically well-connected. The same government force is used by the powerful rich to promote from the programs designed to benefit them.
!CITE:
1998-2:139
The budgetary process and the transfer of wealth that occurs through monetary inflation is influenced more by the business and banking elite than by the poor. The $1.7 trillion budget is not an investment in liberty. The kings are gone and I doubt that we will see another Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao, but the “majority” in our legislative bodies now reign supreme with one goal in mind: maintaining power.
!CITE:
1998-2:140
To do this they must satisfy the power brokers, pretending they are humanitarian saviors while ignoring their responsibility to protect individual liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:141
“Democracy” is now the goal of all those who profess progress and peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:142
The question is, where will our alternative come from? Which group or individual truly speaks for liberty and limited government? The speeches, the rhetoric, the campaigns rarely reveal the underlying support most politicians have for expanding the State, especially when coming from those who are thought to be promoting limited government.
!CITE:
1998-2:143
Those who believe in welfare and socialism are frequently more straightforward. But we are now hearing from some traditional “opponents” of big government, admonishing us to stop “trashing” government. Instead, we should be busy “fixing it.” They do it without once challenging the moral principle that justifies all government intervention in our personal lives and economic transactions.
!CITE:
1998-2:144
William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government saying, “. . . some of today’s antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you come away with the impression that government has never done anything well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air and water remains clean.”
!CITE:
1998-2:145
Bennett’s great concern is this. “Disdain of representative government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to instill in citizens a noble love of country” (the State rather than liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country because of their “utter contempt some have directed against government itself.” In other words, we must love our government ruled by the tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom and America.
!CITE:
1998-2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.
!TITLE:
America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq
!DATE:
4 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Saudis this past week expressed a sincere concern about an anti-American backlash if we start bombing Baghdad. We should not ignore the feelings of the Saudis. If a neighbor can oppose this bombing, we should be very cautious.
!CITE:
1998-3:2
In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money.
!CITE:
1998-3:3
And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists.
!CITE:
1998-3:4
There is no real benefit to pursuing this. Our own military has said this is like putting on a show. It is political, not a military operation.
!TITLE:
Congress Should Move Cautiously On Resolution Regarding Iraq
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, in 1964, a resolution passed this Congress which urged the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
!CITE:
1998-4:2
Today there is a resolution floating around this Congress that urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We should remember history. We lost 50,000 men after we passed that last resolution. We do not have a sensible policy with Iraq. We should move cautiously.
!CITE:
1998-4:3
Madam Speaker, I would also urge other Members to be cautious when they talk about a surgical strike and assassination. Assassination of foreign leaders is still illegal under our law.
!CITE:
1998-4:4
I urge my fellow colleagues, please, be cautious, be careful, and be wise when it comes to giving this President the right to wage war. Ironically, this President did not respond in the same manner with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
!TITLE:
Supporting H.R. 2846
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-5:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
!CITE:
1998-5:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule; and I support H.R. 2846, which forbids the use of Federal funds to develop or implement a national test without explicit authorization from Congress.
!CITE:
1998-5:3
Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the executive branch should support this bill. The administration’s plan to develop and implement a national testing program without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-5:4
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-5:5
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.
!CITE:
1998-5:6
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846 which stops the administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the Federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on American parents so they may better provide for the education of their own children.
!TITLE:
National Education Test
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 2846, which forbids the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National Test without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the Executive Branch should support this bill as the Administration’s plan to develop and implement a national education test without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-6:2
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the United States Government.
!CITE:
1998-6:3
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children — individual states, local communities, and, primarily, parents.
!CITE:
1998-6:4
Implementation of a national test also must be opposed because of its primary effect: the de facto creation of a national curriculum. Many supporters of a national testing try to minimize this threat to local and parental sovereignty by claiming the program would be voluntary. However, these are many of the same people who consider Goals 2000 a “voluntary” program, despite the numerous times Goals 2000 uses the terms “shall” and “must” in describing state functions. Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as colleagues and employers inevitably begin to use national tests as the standard by which students are measure for college entrance exams and entry-level jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find federal, and perhaps even state, funding conditioned upon their “voluntary” participation in the national testing program.
!CITE:
1998-6:5
Educators will react to this pressure to ensure students scored highly on the national test by “teaching to the test” — that is, structuring the curriculum so students learn those subjects, and only those subjects covered by the national tests. As University of Kansas Professor John Poggio remarked in February of last year, “What gets tested is what will be taught.” Government bureaucrats would then control the curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national test!
!CITE:
1998-6:6
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as performance on the national tests becomes the standard by which student performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face increasing pressure to participate in national testing and shape what is taught to fit the criteria of the tests.
!CITE:
1998-6:7
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government can control the curriculum of every school in the nation. Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of education.
!CITE:
1998-6:8
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America’s parents so they may provide for the education of their own children.
!TITLE:
Three Important Issues For America
!DATE:
11 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a few problems I think this country still faces. I want to mention three, but I will talk more about one in particular.
!CITE:
1998-7:2
Overall, I believe this country faces a serious problem in that our government is too big. When government is big, it means that liberty is threatened. Today, our governments throughout the land consume more than half of what the American people produce. In order to do that, there has to be curtailment on individual liberty.
!CITE:
1998-7:3
In the attempt to help people in a welfare-warfare state, unfortunately the poor never seem to be helped. A lot of money is spent, but due to the monetary system that we have, inevitably, the middle class tends to get wiped out and the poor get poorer, and very often in the early stages the wealthy get wealthier. In the meantime, the corporations seem to do quite well. So we live in an age where we have a fair amount of corporatism associated with the welfare-warfare state in which we live.
!CITE:
1998-7:4
The three specific problems that I want to mention, and I mention these because I think this is what the American people are concerned about, and sometimes we here inside the Beltway do not listen carefully to the people around the country. The three issues are these: The first are the scandals that we hear so much about, the second is an IMF bailout, and the third has to do with Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-7:5
Now, the scandals have been around a bit. We have heard about Travelgate and Filegate, and we also heard about interference in foreign policy dealing with foreign donations. Now, those I consider very serious and for this reason I join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) in his resolution to initiate an inquiry into the seriousness of these charges. Some of these charges have been laid aside mainly because there is another scandal in the news, something that has been much more attractive to the media, and that essentially is all that we have been hearing of in the last several weeks. I think this is a distraction from some of the issues that we should deal with. But that is not the one issue that I want to dwell on this evening.
!CITE:
1998-7:6
The IMF is another issue that I think is very important. This funding will be coming up soon. The Congress will be asked to appropriate $18 billion to bail out the Southeast Asian currencies and countries, and this is a cost; although we are told it does not cost anything, it does not add to the deficit, there is obviously a cost, and we cannot convince the American people that there is no cost just because of our method of budgeting and we do not add it into the deficit.
!CITE:
1998-7:7
Once again, these funds, whether they go to Southeast Asia or whether they go to Mexico, they never seem to help the little people; they never help the poor people. The poor are poorer than ever in Mexico, and yet the politicians and the corporations and the bankers even in this country get the bailout. This $18 billion is nothing more than another bailout.
!CITE:
1998-7:8
Now, the third issue is Iraq, and I want to talk more about that, because I am fearful we are about ready to do something very foolish, very foolish for our country, and very dangerous.
!CITE:
1998-7:9
Of these three issues, there is a common thread. When we think about the scandals, we talk about international finance, a large amount of dollars flowing into this country to influence our elections and possibly play a role in our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-7:10
Also, the IMF, which has to do with international finance, the IMF is under the United Nations and therefore it gets a lot of attention and we are asked to appropriate $18 billion.
!CITE:
1998-7:11
Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned.
!CITE:
1998-7:12
Just look at what we have been able to do since World War II without a declaration of war. Precisely. Why are we doing this? And precisely because when we do it, what generally happens is that we are not fighting these wars, and they are not police actions, these are wars, and we are not fighting them because of national interests. We are not fighting them for national security, and therefore, we do not fight to win, and subsequently, what war can we really be proud of since World War II? We have not won them. We set the stage for more problems later on. The Persian Gulf War has led to the stalemate that we have here today, and it goes on and on. I think this is a very important subject.
!CITE:
1998-7:13
War should only be declared for moral reasons. The only moral war is a defensive war and when our country is threatened. Then it is legitimate to come to the people and the people then, through their Members in the House and Senate, and the President then declare war, and then they fight that war to win. But today that is considered very old fashioned, and the consensus here in this Congress is that it will not take much for Congress to pass a resolution.
!CITE:
1998-7:14
What worries me, though, somewhat is that this resolution will not be circulated among the Members for days and weeks and have real serious debate. There is always the possibility that a resolution like this will come up suddenly. There will be little debate, and then a vote, and an endorsement for this policy. The first resolution that has been discussed over in the Senate had language very, very similar to the same language used in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which endorsed the expansion of the war in Vietnam, where 50,000 men were lost, and it was done not with a declaration of war, but by casual agreement by the Congress to go along.
!CITE:
1998-7:15
Congress should have and take more responsibility for these actions. It is only the Congress that should pursue an act of war. Bombing is an act of war, especially if it is a country halfway around the world and a country that has not directly threatened our national security.
!CITE:
1998-7:16
All of the stories about the monstrosities that occur and how terrible the leader might be may have some truth to it, but that does not justify throwing out the rule of law and ignoring our Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-7:17
This effort that is about to be launched, it has not been endorsed by our allies. It is getting very difficult to even get the slightest token endorsement by our allies to start this bombing. One would think if Saddam Hussein was a true threat to that region, his neighbors would be the first ones to be willing to march and to be willing to go to battle to defend themselves. But they are saying, do not even put your troops here, do not launch your effort from our soil, because it is not in our best interests to do so. Kuwait, the country that we went to war over not too long ago has given some token endorsement, but even their newspapers are carrying news stories that really challenge what the people might be saying about this effort.
!CITE:
1998-7:18
There was a Kuwaiti professor who was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, the U.S. frightens us with ads to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies, thus, ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States continued military presence in the Middle East. That is not my opinion; that is a Kuwaiti professor writing in a government newspaper in Kuwait.
!CITE:
1998-7:19
A Kuwaiti legislator who was not willing to reveal his name said the use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it. Most people realize that. In the Middle East, Saddam Hussein has more credibility among his Arab neighbors than he did before the war.
!CITE:
1998-7:20
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.
!CITE:
1998-7:21
Now, these are very important comments to be considered, especially when we are getting ready to do something so serious as to condone the bombing of another country. Just recently in The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative newspaper, talked about what Egypt’s opinion was about this. This is interesting, because the interview was done in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum, and the interview was made by Lally Weymouth, and she talked to Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Amre Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, our ally, a country that gets billions of dollars from us every year.
!CITE:
1998-7:22
So one would expect with all this money flowing into that country that they should quickly do exactly what we want. But this Foreign Minister was rather blunt: Egypt, a key member of the Gulf War coalition, is opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq. He said, We believe that military action should be avoided and there is room for political efforts. He said, If such action is taken, there will be considerable fallout in the Arab world, he warned. He said, We are not afraid of Saddam. He added that his country believes the crisis is a result of allegations that have not been proven. Yet, we are willing to go and do such a thing as to initiate this massive bombing attack on this country, and there has been nothing proven.
!CITE:
1998-7:23
Moussa also said that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons must be pursued, of course. But this requires cooperation with Iraq, not confrontation. Even our President admits that more weapons have been removed from Iraq since the war ended than which occurred with the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as 88,000 bombs that were dropped in the whole of World War II, and it did not accomplish the mission.
!CITE:
1998-7:24
So he is suggesting that it is just not worth the effort and it is not going to work. And he, of course, speaks for one of our allies.
!CITE:
1998-7:25
He says, “The whole Middle East is not comfortable with this, and I do not think there is support for such an option.
!CITE:
1998-7:26
All of us will face the consequence of such a military attack.” “All of us” means all of them, not the people here in the United States.
!CITE:
1998-7:27
He said 7 years ago there was an occupation and an apparent aggression. Today it is a question over inspections, so therefore he is arguing strenuously that we not do this. The people in the Middle East, he says, see a double standard. He is talking for the Arabs.
!CITE:
1998-7:28
The people in the Middle East see a double standard because the Israeli Government does not comply with U.N. Resolution 242, but we see no action. The U.S. is too strong on one and too soft on the other. The peace process is falling apart. We do know that the peace process with Israel and the Palestinians is not going smoothly, yet this is behind some of what is happening because they do not understand our policy.
!CITE:
1998-7:29
He goes on to say, “There is room for a political solution. Bear in mind the repercussions in the area. If the United States bombs, there will be Iraqi victims.” Then he asks, “What happens if the public sees a decisive move on the part of Iraq but not toward Israel? We have to take into consideration how the people who live near Iraq respond to something like this.”
!CITE:
1998-7:30
Now, Steven Rosenfeld, in the Washington Post, on February 6, also made comments about the Middle East and the failure of the Mideast policy. And I thought he had a very interesting comment, because he certainly would not be coming at this from the same viewpoint that I have.
!CITE:
1998-7:31
In his statement, this again is Rosenfeld in the Washington Post, he said, “There is a fatal flaw at the heart of Netanyahu’s policy. He is not prepared to address the Palestinians’ basic grievance. To think that Israel can humiliate the Palestinians politically and then reap the benefits of their security cooperation is foolish. It can’t happen.”
!CITE:
1998-7:32
Here we are being more involved in the Middle East process with Iraq in the hope that we are going to bring about peace.
!CITE:
1998-7:33
What about another close ally, an ally that we have had since World War II: Turkey. Turkey is not anxious for doing this. They do not want us to take the bombers and the troops out of Turkey. As a matter of fact, they are hesitant about this. This is an article from the Washington Times by Philip Smucker. He said, “Turkey’s growing fears of a clash in Iraq are based largely on what it sees as the ruinous aftermath of the Gulf War.”
!CITE:
1998-7:34
So Turkey is claiming that they are still suffering from the Gulf War.
!CITE:
1998-7:35
“The people,” and this is quoting from the Foreign Ministry Sermet Atacanli, “the people have started thinking that Turkey is somehow being punished,” a senior foreign official said. “We supported the war, but we are losing now.” So they are getting no benefits.
!CITE:
1998-7:36
He said that since the war, Turkey has suffered economic losses of some $35 billion stemming from the invigorated Kurdish uprising on the Iraqi border and the shutting down of the border trade, including the Iraqi oil exports through Turkey. They used to have trade; now they do not.
!CITE:
1998-7:37
We encouraged the Kurds to revolt and then stepped aside, so the Kurds are unhappy with the Americans because they were disillusioned as to what they thought they were supposed to be doing. “Turkey’s clear preference is for Iraq to regain control of its own Kurdish regions on the Turkish border and resume normal relations with Ankara.”
!CITE:
1998-7:38
Further quoting the foreign ministry of Turkey, “Iraq cannot exercise sovereignty over these regions, so there has become a power vacuum that has created an atmosphere in which terrorists operate freely.” It has taken quite some effort for Turkish forces to deal with this problem.
!CITE:
1998-7:39
What will happen if the bombs are relatively successful? More vacuum. More confusion. And more turmoil in that region.
!CITE:
1998-7:40
The military goals are questioned by even the best of our military people in this country, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what our military goals are. We do not have the troops there to invade and to take over Baghdad or to get rid of Hussein, but we have a lot of bombs and we have a lot of firepower. Yet, we are supposed to be intimidated and fearful of this military strength of Saddam Hussein. Yet even by our own intelligence reports, his strength is about one-half what it was before the Persian Gulf War started. So there is a little bit more fear-mongering there than I think is justified.
!CITE:
1998-7:41
But if we do not plan to send troops, we just agree to send bombs, then it will not get rid of Hussein. Why are we doing this? Because some people question this and some people respond and say, that may be correct, maybe we do not have the ability to inflict enough damage or to kill Hussein. And some here have even suggested that we assassinate him.
!CITE:
1998-7:42
Well, I am not going to defend Iraq. I am not going to defend Hussein. But I do have a responsibility here for us in the Congress to obey the law, and under our law, under the Constitution, and with a sense of morality, we do not go around assassinating dictators. I think history shows that we were involved in that in South Vietnam and it did not help us one bit.
!CITE:
1998-7:43
Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region.
!CITE:
1998-7:44
It is conceivable to me that it would be to Hussein’s benefit, and he probably is not worried that much, but I do not believe it is in our interest. I do not believe it is in the interest of the American people, the American taxpayers, the American fighter pilots, and certainly long-term interest in the Middle East. We will spend a lot of money doing it. That is one issue.
!CITE:
1998-7:45
We could end up having lives lost. We still have not solved all the problems and taken care of all the victims of the Persian Gulf War syndrome which numbers in the tens of thousands. Maybe we should be talking about that more than looking for more problems and a greater chance for a serious confrontation where lives were lost.
!CITE:
1998-7:46
The Iraqi and the Syrian views, according to this article, are very close and almost identical in rejecting a resort to force and American military threats. We do not get support there, and we should not ignore that.
!CITE:
1998-7:47
Just recently Schwarzkopf was interviewed on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press,” and he had some interesting comments to make, very objective, very military-oriented comments. He would not agree with me on my policy or the policy that I would advocate of neutrality and nonintervention and the pro-American policy. But he did have some warnings about the military operation.
!CITE:
1998-7:48
He said, “I do not think the bombing, I don’t think it will change his behavior at all. Saddam’s goal is to go down in history as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar by uniting the Arab world against the west. He may not mind a big strike if, after it, the United Nations lifts economic sanctions against Iraq.”
!CITE:
1998-7:49
I am afraid that this policy is going in the wrong direction, that we are going to have ramifications of it for years to come, and that we will and could have the same type of result as we had in Vietnam that took a decade for us to overcome.
!CITE:
1998-7:50
Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this bombing will accomplish what we should do. Charles Duefler, deputy chief of the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi inspection said, “Put bluntly, we do not really know what Iraq has.”
!CITE:
1998-7:51
That is at the heart of the problem. Here is our U.N. inspector admitting that they have no idea. So how can we prove that somebody does not have something if we do not know what he is supposed to have? So the odds of this military operation accomplishing very much are essentially slim to none.
!CITE:
1998-7:52
Charles Krauthammer, who would be probably in favor of doing a lot more than I would do, had some advice. He said, “Another short bombing campaign would simply send yet another message of American irresolution. It would arouse Arab complaints about American arrogance and aggression while doing nothing to decrease Saddam’s grip on power. Better to do nothing,” Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. These are not my views. They are warnings that we should not ignore.
!CITE:
1998-7:53
Richard Cohen from the Washington Post had some advice. He said, “Still military action is a perilous course. It will produce what is called ‘collateral damage,’ a fancy term for the accidental killing of civilians and possibly the unintentional destruction of a school or mosque.”
!CITE:
1998-7:54
We have heard of that before. “That, in turn,” he goes on to say, “will provoke protests in parts of the Arab world, Jordan probably and Egypt as well. In both countries the United States is already considered the protector of a recalcitrant Israeli Government. As for Israel itself, it can expect that Iraq will send missiles its way armed with chemical or biological weapons.”
!CITE:
1998-7:55
This is Richard Cohen warning us about some of the ramifications of what might happen.
!CITE:
1998-7:56
But during these past 8 years since the war has ended, there has been no signs that that is likely to happen. It is more likely to happen that some missile or some accident will occur that will spread this war from a neat little war to something much bigger than we are interested in dealing with.
!CITE:
1998-7:57
There are several other points that I would like to mention here. The one thing we cannot measure and we cannot anticipate are the accidents that happen. So often wars are caused by people being in the wrong place at wrong time, and then accidents happen and somebody gets killed, a ship is sunk, and we have to go to war.
!CITE:
1998-7:58
Other times some of these events may be staged. One individual suggested the possibility of a person like Saddam Hussein actually acting irrationally and doing something radical to his own people and then turning around and blaming the United States or Israel or something like that. So we are dealing with an individual that may well do this and for his specific purposes.
!CITE:
1998-7:59
But we would all be better off, not so much that we can anticipate exactly who we should help and who we should support; we have done too much of that. We help too often both sides of every war that has existed in the last 50 years, and we have pretended that we have known what is best for everybody. I think that is impossible.
!CITE:
1998-7:60
I think the responsibility of the Members of Congress here is to protect the national interest, to provide national security, to take care of national defense, to follow the rules that say, we should not go to war unless the war is declared. If we go to war, we go to war to fight and win the war. But we do not go to war because we like one country over another country and we want to support them.
!CITE:
1998-7:61
We literally support both sides in the Middle East, and it is a balancing act and, quite frankly, both sides right now seem to be a little bit unhappy with us. So the policy has not been working; we have not been able to achieve what we think we are able to do. But we must be very cautious on what we are doing here in the next few weeks.
!CITE:
1998-7:62
People say, well, we have to do it because Hussein has so much of this firepower, he has all of these weapons of mass destruction. It was just recently reported by U.S. intelligence that there are 20 nations now who are working on and producing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran and Syria. So why do we not go in there and check them out too?
!CITE:
1998-7:63
Why is it that we have no more concern about our national security concern about China? I think China can pose a national threat. I do not think we should be doing it to China. I do not think we should be looking to find out what kind of weapons they have. We know they sell weapons to Iraq. And we know they are a very capable nation when it comes to military. But what do we do with China? We give them foreign aid. They are one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the whole world.
!CITE:
1998-7:64
So we do not apply the rules to all the countries the same, and we get narrowed in on one item and we get distracted from many of the facts that I think are so important. Some people believe that it is conceivable that the oil is even very important in this issue as well.
!CITE:
1998-7:65
We obviously knew the oil was important in the Persian Gulf War because it was said that we were going over there to protect our oil. Of course, it was Iraqi oil but some people believe sincerely that keeping this Iraqi oil off the market helps keep the prices higher and they do not need that to happen.
!CITE:
1998-7:66
As a matter of fact, it was in the Wall Street Journal today that that was further suggested. It said: Equally important the U.S. must terminate illegal oil exports from the Iraqi port of Basra.
!CITE:
1998-7:67
There, submerged barges depart daily for Iran, which sells the oil and, after a hefty rake-off, returns the proceeds to fund Saddam. So there are sales and there might be people that are looking at this mainly as a financial thing dealing with oil.
!CITE:
1998-7:68
The odds now of us being able to stop this bombing I think are pretty slim. I think that is rather sad because it looks like there will be a resolution that will come to the floor. There probably will not be a chance for a lot of debate. It will come up under suspension possibly and yet in the words may be toned down a little bit.
!CITE:
1998-7:69
It might not be identical to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. But all I would like to do is point out to my colleagues that this is more important than it appears, and we should not be so glib as to give this authority, to give the cover for the President to say, well, the Congress said it was okay. I do not think the Congress should say it is okay, because I think it is the wrong thing to do. And I think it could lead to so many, so many more problems.
!CITE:
1998-7:70
So we have a responsibility. If the responsibility is that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national security, we should be more honest with the American people. We should tell them what the problem is. We should have a resolution, a declaration of war.
!CITE:
1998-7:71
Obviously, that would not pass but it looks like it will not be difficult to pass a resolution that will condone and give sanction to whatever the President does regardless of all the military arguments against it.
!CITE:
1998-7:72
So I see this as really a sad time for us and not one that we should be proud of. I do know that the two weakest arguments I can present here would be that of a moral argument, that wars ought to be fought only for defense and for national security. I have been told that is too old-fashioned and we must police the world, and we have the obligation. We are the only superpower.
!CITE:
1998-7:73
Well, I do not think that is a legitimate argument. I do have a lot of reservation that we are so anxious to go along with getting authority elsewhere, and that is through the United Nations. When the Persian Gulf War was started, getting ready to start, it was said that we did not need the Congress to approve this because the authority came from the United Nations resolution.
!CITE:
1998-7:74
Well, that to me is the wrong way to go. If we are involved in internationalism, where international financing now is influencing our presidential election, if international finances demand that we take more money from the American taxpayers and bail out southeast Asian countries through the IMF and that we are willing to have our young men and women be exposed to war conditions and to allow them to go to war mainly under a U.N. resolution and a token endorsement by the Congress, I think this is the wrong way to go.
!CITE:
1998-7:75
I do realize that we have been doing it this way for 40 or 50 years. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the American people are all that happy about it. I have not yet had anybody in my district come up to me and start saying, RON, I want you to get up there and start voting. I want to see those bombs flying.
!CITE:
1998-7:76
As a matter of fact, I have had a lot of them come and say, why are you guys up there thinking about going to war? I have had a lot of people talk about that. So we should not do this carelessly and casually.
!CITE:
1998-7:77
There is no reason in the world why we cannot be willing to look at the rule of law. The rule of law is very clear. We do not have the moral authority to do this. This is, we must recognize, this is an act of war.
!CITE:
1998-7:78
When the resolution comes up to the floor, no matter how watered down it is, I think everybody should think very seriously about it and not be careless about it, not wait until a decade goes by and 50,000 men are killed. I think that is the wrong way to do it.
!CITE:
1998-7:79
There is nothing wrong with a pro- American foreign policy, one of nonintervention, one where we are neutral. That was our tradition for more than 100 years. It stood out in George Washington’s farewell address, talk about nonentangling alliances. These entangling alliances and our willingness to get involved has not been kind to us in the 20th century. So we should really consider the option of a foreign policy that means that we should be friends with all.
!CITE:
1998-7:80
People will immediately say that is isolationism. Even if you are not for the IMF bailout, this argument really bewilders me. If you are not for the $18 billion bailout of the IMF, you are an isolationist. You can be for free trade and get rid of all the tariffs and do everything else, but if you are not willing to give your competitors more money and bail them out and bail out the banks, you are an isolationist. You are not for free trade. It is complete nonsense. There is nothing wrong with isolating our military forces.
!CITE:
1998-7:81
We do not have to be the policemen of the world. We have not done a good job and the world is not safer today because of our willingness to do this. One act leads to the next one. We are still fighting the Persian Gulf War, and it sounds to me like we are losing our allies. We must take this under serious advisement. We must not be too anxious to go and do something that we could be very sorry for.
!CITE:
1998-7:82
I know that people do not like this statement I am going to be making to be made, but I think there should be a consideration for it. So often Members here are quite willing to vote to put ourselves and our men in harm’s way that could lead to a serious confrontation with many deaths. But if those individuals who claim that it would be best to assassinate Saddam Hussein or put land troops on there, I wonder if they would be willing to be the first ones on the beachhead. That really is the question. That is a fair statement.
!CITE:
1998-7:83
If you are willing to go yourself, if you are willing to send your child, then it is more legitimate to vote casually and carelessly to go marching off with acts of war. But if that individual who is getting ready to vote, if he himself or she herself is not willing to land on that beach and risk their lives, they should think a second time.
!CITE:
1998-7:84
In a war for national defense, if this country is threatened, every one of us should participate in it. We should and we can. We could do it our way, to participate in the defense of this country. But once it is being involved in a casual and a careless manner with not knowing what the goals are, not knowing what victory means, not fighting to win, this can only lead to bigger problems.
!CITE:
1998-7:85
This is the time to reassess it. I know time is running short. Everybody is afraid of losing face. Some people say, well, how do we back off and we cannot let Saddam Hussein lose face, and what about our own politicians who have been saying that we must do something. They will lose face. Would that not be the worst reason in the world to do this, because they are afraid of losing face because we threatened them? If it is the wrong thing to do, we should not do it. And there seems to me to be no direct benefit to the American people, certainly no benefit to the American taxpayer, certainly no benefit to peace in the Middle East. It is more likely to cause more turmoil. It is more likely to unify the Islamic fundamentalists like they have never been unified before.
!CITE:
1998-7:86
So what we are doing here is very serious business. Unfortunately, it looks like it is going to happen and it looks like there will be one or two or three or four of us that will say, go slow, do not do this, let us question this. But unfortunately, the only significant criticism we have had of the policy has been, do more faster.
!CITE:
1998-7:87
We do not need to do more faster. We need to do less quicker, much less quicker. Nothing has been happening in the last few years, the last few weeks. Does President Clinton need to bomb over the weekend or next week or two weeks from now? I say absolutely not. There is no need for this.
!CITE:
1998-7:88
Saddam is weaker than he used to be. He could be stronger after this is finished. So we must be cautious. We must take our time and think about this before we go off and make this declaration. It sounds like a lot of fun. We have a lot of bombers. We have a lot of equipment that we have to test, and we can go over there and see if the B–1 and the stealth bombers will work a little bit better than they have in the past. But this is not a game. This is not a game. This is serious business.
!CITE:
1998-7:89
One item like this, one event like this can lead to something else, and that is what we have to be cautious about. We cannot assume that, yes, we can bomb for a day or two or three or four and the stronger the rhetoric the more damage we are going to do. We need less rhetoric. We as a Nation have on occasion been the initiators of peace talks. We encourage the two groups in the Middle East, the Israelis and the Palestinians. We bring them to our country. We ask them to sit down and talk. Please talk before you kill each other. We go to the Protestants and we go to the Catholics and we say, please talk, do not kill each other. Why do we not talk more to Hussein? He is willing to.
!CITE:
1998-7:90
I know, I mean you have to take his word with a grain of salt, but would it not be better to sit down across the table and at least talk rather than pursue a course that, a military course that may be more harmful?
!CITE:
1998-7:91
If this would be a guarantee that it would get a lot better and that we would solve a lot of problems, maybe we could consider it. But even those who advocate this do not claim they know when the end stage is, what the ultimate goal is, and that they would expect success. They are not expecting this. They just want to bomb, bomb people. Innocent people will die. Those pictures will be on television.
!CITE:
1998-7:92
And I, quite frankly, do not believe the polls that most Americans want us to do this. I go home; I talk to a lot of my constituents. I do not find them coming and saying, do this. They do not even understand, the people who come and talk to me, they ask me what is going on up there. Why are they getting ready to do this?
!CITE:
1998-7:93
I mean, most people in this country cannot even find where Iraq is on the map. I mean, they are not that concerned about it. And yet all we would have to do is have one ship go down and have loss of life and then all of a sudden, then do we turn tail? Then is it that we do not lose face after we lose 1,000 men by some accident or some freakish thing happening?
!CITE:
1998-7:94
Sure, we will lose more face then. But we can save face if we do what is right, explain what we are doing and be open to negotiations. There is nothing wrong with that. I mean, there has not been a border crossing.
!CITE:
1998-7:95
The other thing is it would be nice if we had a policy in this country, a foreign policy that had a little bit of consistency. I have been made fun of at one time on the House floor for being consistent and wanting to be consistent.
!CITE:
1998-7:96
I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with being consistent. I think there should be a challenge on my ideas or our ideas. We should challenge ideas. But if you want to be consistent, if they are the right ideas, you should be consistent. But we talk about this horrible country, I am not defending the country and I am not defending Hussein, but we criticize him as an individual who invaded another country. I wonder what they are talking about.
!CITE:
1998-7:97
I wonder if they are talking about when he invaded Iran with our encouragement and our money and our support. Is that what they are talking about? Or are they talking about the other invasion that we did not like because it was a threat to western oil? I think that might be the case.
!CITE:
1998-7:98
So they talk about poison gas. Yes, there is no doubt about it. I think the evidence is out that he has used poison gas against his own people. Horrible, killed a lot of people. But never against another country, which means the line could be drawn by if he had ever used these weapons. We cannot investigate 20 countries. We cannot investigate North Korea. We cannot investigate China. Why do we have this obsession with investigating this country? But poison gases, under international agreements, we are not supposed to use poison gases.
!CITE:
1998-7:99
Poison gases, we used them, not against a foreign power but we used them against our own people. No, we did not have a mass killing but those families understood it. Over 100, more than 100, 150 people were gassed with gas that was illegal, according to our own agreements, and we used them at Waco.
!CITE:
1998-7:100
So at one time we were an ally of a country, at the same time he is using poison gas and invading another country and then, when he invades the wrong country, then we give him trouble.
!CITE:
1998-7:101
For many, many years, Noriega was our ally, and he was no angel when he was our ally. He received money from the CIA, but all of a sudden he wanted to be his own drug lord. He did not want to be beholding to our CIA, so we had to do something about him.
!CITE:
1998-7:102
There is nothing wrong with a foreign policy that is consistent based on a moral principle and on our Constitution. That means that the responsibility of the U.S. Congress is to provide for a strong national defense. There is nothing wrong with being friends with everybody who is willing to be friends with us. There is nothing wrong with trading with as many people that will trade with us, and there is nothing wrong with working for as low tariffs as possible.
!CITE:
1998-7:103
There is no reason why we should not consider at least selling some food and medicine to Castro. We have had a confrontation with Castro now for 40 years, and it has served him well because his socialism and his communism was an absolute failure. But he always had a scapegoat. It was the Americans. It was the Americans because they boycotted and they would not trade and, therefore, that was the reason they suffered. So it served him well.
!CITE:
1998-7:104
I would think that being willing to talk with people, if we believe in our system, if we believe that liberty is something to be proud of and that that works, I am convinced that it is better to have set an example to talk with people, trade with people, and go back and forth as freely as possible and we will spread our message much better than we ever will with bombs.
!CITE:
1998-7:105
How many bombs did we drop in South Vietnam? How many men were lost on our side? How many people were lost on the other side? How many innocent people were lost? So the war ends, after a decade. After a decade of misery in this country where we literally had to turn on our own people to suppress the demonstrations. But today I have friends who are doing business in South Vietnam, making money over there, which means that trade and talk works. They are becoming more Westernized.
!CITE:
1998-7:106
This whole approach of militancy, believing that we can force our way on other people, will not and cannot work. Matter of fact, the few quotes that I used here earlier are indicating that we are doing precisely the wrong thing; that we are further antagonizing not only our so-called enemies, but we are further antagonizing our allies. So if there is no uniformity of opinion of the neighbors, of Iraq, that we should be doing this, if we will not listen to the moral, if we will not listen to the constitutional issue, we should listen to the practical issue. His neighbors do not want us to do it.
!CITE:
1998-7:107
And what are we going to prove? We should not do it. We should reassess this. We should decide quietly and calmly and deliberately in this body that quite possibly the move toward internationalism, abiding by the U.N. resolutions, paying through the nose to the IMF to bail out the special interests, never helping the poor but always helping the rich, encouraging a system that encourages foreign countries to come in and buy influence, should be challenged. We should change it.
!CITE:
1998-7:108
And we do not have to be isolationists. We can be more open and more willing to trade and talk with people and we will have a greater chance of peace and prosperity. That is our purpose. Our purpose is to protect liberty. And we do not protect American liberty by jeopardizing their liberty and the wealth of this country by getting involved when we should not be involved.
!CITE:
1998-7:109
The world is a rough enough place already, and there will continue to be the hot spots of the world, but I am totally convinced that a policy of American intervention overseas, subjecting other nations to our will, trying to be friends to both sides at all times, subsidizing both sides and then trying this balancing act that never works, this is not going to work either. It did not work in the 1980s when we were closely allied and subsidizing Hussein and it will not work now when we are trying to bomb him.
!CITE:
1998-7:110
Neither will it work for us to not have somewhat of a consistent policy to ignore the other countries that are doing the very same thing at the same time the real threat possibly could be a country like China. And what do we do? We give them billions and billions of dollars of subsidies.
!CITE:
1998-7:111
There is nothing wrong with a consistent defense of a pro-America foreign policy. People will say, well, the world is different and we have to be involved. That is exactly the reason that we ought to be less aggressive. That is exactly the reason why we ought to take our own counsel and not do these things. Because we live in an age where communications are much more rapid. The weapons are much worse. There is every reason in the world to do less of this, not more of it.
!CITE:
1998-7:112
But none of this could happen. We could never move in this direction unless we asked a simple question: What really is the role of our government? Is the role of our government to perpetuate a welfare-warfare state to take care of the large special interests who benefit from this by building weapons and buying and selling oil? No, the purpose cannot be that.
!CITE:
1998-7:113
The welfare-warfare state does not work. The welfare for poor is well-motivated; it is intended to help people, but it never helps them. They become an impoverished, dependent class. And we are on the verge of bankruptcy, no matter what we hear about the balanced budget. The national debt is going up by nearly $200 billion a year and it cannot be sustained. So this whole nonsense of a balanced budget and trying to figure out where to spend the excess is nonsense. It just encourages people to take over more of the responsibilities that should be with the American people.
!CITE:
1998-7:114
We here in the Congress should be talking about defending this country, providing national security, providing for a strong currency, not deliberately distorting the currency. We should be protecting private property rights and making sure that there is no incentive for the special interests of this country to come and buy their influence up here.
!CITE:
1998-7:115
We do not need any fancy campaign reform laws. There is no need for those. We need to eliminate the ability of the Congress to pass out favors. I do not get any PAC money because there is no attempt to come and ask me to do special favors for anybody. I get a lot of donations from people who want liberty. They want to be left alone, and they know, they know that they can take care of themselves.
!CITE:
1998-7:116
Now, this point will not be proven until the welfare state crumbles, and it may well crumble in the next decade. The Soviet system crumbled rather suddenly. We cannot afford to continue to do this, but we must be cautious not to allow the corporate state and the militant attitude that we have with our policy to rule. We have to decide here in this country, as well as in this body, what we want from our government and what kind of a government we want.
!CITE:
1998-7:117
We got off from the right track with the founders of this country. They wrote a good document and that document was designed for this purpose, for the protection of liberty. We have gone a long way from that, until now we have the nanny state that we cannot even plow our gardens without umpteen number of permits from the Federal Government. So our government is too big, it is too massive, and we have undermined the very concept of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-7:118
Foreign policy is very important because it is under the conditions of war; it is under the condition of foreign confrontation that people are so willing to give up their liberties at home because of the fear. We should avoid unnecessary confrontations overseas and we should concentrate on bettering the people here in this country, and it can best be done by guaranteeing property rights, free markets, sound money, and a sensible approach to our foreign policy.
!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn
!DATE:
11 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o’clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 10 a.m.
!TITLE:
Iraq
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapons technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq?
!CITE:
1998-9:2
Instead, though, we give foreign aid to both China and to Russia, so indirectly we are subsidizing the very weapons that we are trying to eliminate.
!CITE:
1998-9:3
I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.
!CITE:
1998-9:4
Bombing will solve nothing. It will open up a can of worms. We should not condone it. We should not endorse it. We should not encourage it.
!CITE:
1998-9:5
Please think carefully before we permit our President to pursue this war adventure.
!TITLE:
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national identification number by which the federal government can more easily monitor private information regarding American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-10:2
The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official.
!CITE:
1998-10:3
Now Congress is preparing to authorize the use of the Social Security number to verify citizenship for purposes of voting. Opponents of this bill are right to point out that, whatever protections are written in this bill, allowing states to force citizens to present a Social Security number before they can vote will require the augmentation of a national data base — similar to those created in the Welfare Reform and the Immigration Bills of 1996.
!CITE:
1998-10:4
Mr. Speaker, clearly we are heading for the day when American citizens cannot work, go to school, have a child, or even exercise their right to vote without presenting what, in effect, is quickly becoming a national I.D. card.
!CITE:
1998-10:5
National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I’m sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen’s papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their “papers” containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting.
!CITE:
1998-10:6
In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.
!TITLE:
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to just urge some caution on what we do.
!CITE:
1998-11:2
I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually.
!CITE:
1998-11:3
Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.
!CITE:
1998-11:4
We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war continues.
!CITE:
1998-11:5
It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that.
!CITE:
1998-11:6
Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable under our system of law, and I call my colleagues’ attention to this because this is very serious.
!CITE:
1998-11:7
I do not care more about military than those who would bomb; they have just as much concern as I have. But I am concerned about the rule of law, and obviously, I am concerned about consequences that are unforeseen, and there could be many.
!CITE:
1998-11:8
I am worried that we do not have allied support, and everybody recognizes that now. There are very few neighbors of Saddam Hussein who are very anxious for us to do this. So that should cause some reservation.
!CITE:
1998-11:9
Also the military strategy here is questionable. It is actually what are we going to try to achieve? Are we going to try to literally destroy all the weapons, or are we going to try to destroy him? Are we just going to bomb people where maybe innocent people will be killed? The long-term military strategy has not been spelled out, and I have a concern for that.
!CITE:
1998-11:10
Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. Government and the British Government participated and they have the documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what we do.
!CITE:
1998-11:11
Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary.
!CITE:
1998-11:12
The other side of the aisle suggests that we have a full debate and a resolution in 10 days after we come back. That certainly makes a lot of sense to me. I think at this point to condone and endorse and encourage the President to do something at this late hour when there is essentially no one here in the Chamber, I do not think this is a good way to casually step into something that could be rather dangerous. The resolutions that have been talked about ironically are quite similar to the resolution passed in the 1960s that got us further involved in Vietnam.
!CITE:
1998-11:13
So, in all sincerity, I come here asking all Members to be cautious and for the President not to move too hastily.
!TITLE:
We Encouraged Saddam Hussein
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!CITE:
1998-12:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to make two points. The other gentleman from California makes a good point about the character of Saddam Hussein, but my colleagues have to remember and have to realize that he was a close ally that we encouraged for 8 years during the 1980s, so we helped build him up, which contradicts this whole policy. I would like to see a more consistent policy.
!CITE:
1998-12:3
Then the gentleman brings up the subject: Yes, he may be in the business of developing weapons, but he has gotten help from China and Russia, and possibly from Britain and the United States, and 20 other nations are doing the same thing. So if we are interested in stopping these weapons, we better attack 20 countries. So we have a job on our hands.
!TITLE:
Millennium Bug
!DATE:
24 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this Legislation, H.R. 3116, will not solve the Year 2000 problem. Giving some financial regulators “statutory parity” with other regulators will not solve the problem. Everyone will have to take responsibility to secure that their own systems will be Year 2000-compliant. We must hope that the government will be as diligent in its compliance with the so-called Millennium Bug problem as it want the private sector to be.
!CITE:
1998-13:2
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported unfavorably on the FDIC’s readiness. Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, US Senate, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems, testified on February 10, 1998 (Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank’s Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant) that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has not met its own “y2k-compliant” standards. According to GAO, the FDIC has not yet completed the assessment phase of the remediation process, despite its own standard that banks under the agency’s supervision should have completed this phase by the end of the third quarter of 1997.
!CITE:
1998-13:3
The bill requires the regulators to provide information (seminars, etc.), make available to financial institutions model approaches to address the Year 2000 problem, and to give the regulators examination authority to examine third party service provides under contract to federally-insured institutions.
!CITE:
1998-13:4
James Mills, of NAFCU, testified before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, “Historically, the role of providing education and training is one best performed by the private sector, namely trade associations and industry-related organizations . . . Rather than require federal agencies to offer seminars, perhaps any legislative efforts should require federal agencies to participate in such programs or make it advisable and permissible to participate.” NAFCU believes that the focus of H.R. 3116 should be strictly limited to ensuring compliance. In its present form, H.R. 3116 contains a broad and permanent expansion of NCUA’s examination and regulatory authority . . . Legitimate questions may be raised as to whether, absent the year 2000 issue, NCUA, as a federal financial regulatory agency, should have the authority not just to examine but to actually regulate private business enterprises incorporated under the laws of various states. The authority given to NCUA in H.R. 3116, is not limited to the examination and regulation of credit unions, but would allow NCUA to examine and regulate third-party businesses, vendors and outside providers. Do the members of the Committee intend to give NCUA authority to regulate private entities?”
!CITE:
1998-13:5
Ellen Seidman, Director OTS, added, “Clearly, the primary responsibility and liability for Year 2000 compliance rests with the regulated institutions themselves, including those that rely on service providers . . . Some service providers, however, have been resistant to these contractual provisions and, as a result, thrifts have been hindered in their ability to contract for services.”
!CITE:
1998-13:6
This bill raises legal liability questions that may actually thwart a financial institution’s ability to address the y2k problem more effectively. Introducing legislation on the y2k issue would only give more people more incentive to sue companies which are not compliant. How does the bill define “year 2000 compliance”? It isn’t clear. Such ambiguity only causes further problems. The real problem with y2k isn’t the computers, its the people. More legislation will only compound the problem.
!CITE:
1998-13:7
Year 2000 issues with computers cause numerous headaches but by no means unsolvable problems. Solutions exist, and since we do exist in a relatively free market, we should allow it to work.
!TITLE:
Opposing Federal Gun Control
!DATE:
24 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states.
!CITE:
1998-14:2
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.
!CITE:
1998-14:3
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-14:4
For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government’s attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had a chance to pick a topic for my special order today, I would call it the folly of foreign intervention.
!CITE:
1998-15:2
We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-15:3
This, I think, is beneficial. At least it gives both sides more time to stop and think and talk before more bombs are dropped.
!CITE:
1998-15:4
Before we left about 10 days ago from the Congress, I think many Members and much of the Nation thought that within a short period of time, within a week or so, there would be additional bombing by the Americans over Baghdad.
!CITE:
1998-15:5
There were polls out at that time that said 70 percent of the American people endorsed this move, something that I questioned and of course I question the legitimacy of dealing with policy by measuring polls, anyway. I think we should do what is right, not try to decide what is right by the polls. But in this circumstance, I think the polls must have been very, very misleading.
!CITE:
1998-15:6
We heard a gentleman earlier this evening from North Dakota mention when he was at home essentially nobody was telling him that they were in favor of the war. I think most Members of Congress on this past week on visiting home had the same message. Certainly there was a very loud message in Columbus at a town hall meeting. It was written off by those who wanted to go to war and wanted to drop the bombs by saying, well, no, this was just a very noisy bunch of hippies who are opposed to the war. There are a lot of people in this country who are opposed to the war and they are not hippies. I think to discredit people who oppose going and participating in an act of war and try to discredit them by saying that they belong to a hippie generation, I think they are going to lose out in the credibility argument in this regards.
!CITE:
1998-15:7
This debate has been going on for quite a few months. It looks like it is not resolved. Although there has been an agreement, it is far from a victory for either side. It is somewhat ironic about how this has come about, because it seems that those of us who have been urging great caution have been satisfied with at least a temporary solution, yet we are not entirely satisfied at all with the dependency on the effort by the United States enforcing U.N. resolutions. In this case I think what we must do is reassess the entire policy because it is policy that gets us into trouble.
!CITE:
1998-15:8
It is in this one instance. We did not just invent foreign interventionism in foreign policy. This has been going on for a long time. The worst and the first egregious example, of course, was in Korea where we went to war under the U.N. banner and was the first war we did not win. Yet we continue with this same policy throughout the world. Hardly can we be proud of what happened in Vietnam. It seems like we are having a lot more success getting along with the Vietnamese people as we trade with them rather than fight with them.
!CITE:
1998-15:9
There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used.
!CITE:
1998-15:10
So all of a sudden it is hard to understand why our policy changes. But once we embark on a policy of intervention and it is arbitrary, we intervene when we please or when it seems to help, it seems then that we can be on either side of any issue anytime, and so often we are on both sides of many wars. This does not serve us well. A policy design that is said to be pro-American and in defense of this country where we follow the rules and follow the laws and we do not get involved in war without a declaration by the Congress, I think it would be very healthy not only for us as Americans but it would be very healthy for the world as a whole.
!CITE:
1998-15:11
I am very pleased that there has been at least a pause here, although our troops will be maintained there and they are waiting to see if there is some other excuse that we can go in there and resume the bombing. But the whole notion that we are going to bring Hussein to his knees without the cost of many American lives I think is naive, because nobody has proposed that we go in and invade the country. There have been proposals that we just assassinate Hussein, which is illegal. At least that is acknowledged that this is an illegal act, to go in and kill another leader, although we have been involved in that too. But many people have argued that this should be our policy now, and that is to topple Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-15:12
But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-15:13
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN).
!TITLE:
What Did Congressman Duncan’s Constituents Want
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-16:1
Mr. PAUL. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. He was just home in his district, he traveled and talked to quite a few of his constituents. Did he get a sentiment from his district on what they want?
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-17:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us.
!CITE:
1998-17:2
I have always lamented the fact that we so often are anxious to close down our bases here within the United States because we are always looking for the next monster to slay outside of the country, so we build air bases in places like Saudi Arabia. Then when the time comes that our leaders think that it is necessary to pursue a war policy in the region, they do not even allow us to use the bases. I think that is so often money down the drain. It is estimated now that we have probably pumped in $7 billion into Bosnia and that is continuing. Our President is saying now that that is open-ended, there is no date to bring those troops back. We have already spent probably a half a billion additional dollars these last several weeks just beefing up the troops in the Persian Gulf.
!CITE:
1998-17:3
The funds will not be endless. I have too many calls from so many in my district who serve in the military, and their complaint is that they do not have enough funds to adequately train. We are wasting money in the wrong places, getting ourselves into more trouble than we need to. At the same time we detract from spending the money where we should in training our personnel the way they should be. I think this is not so much a tactical decision made by management as much as it is a policy decision on what our foreign policy ought to be.
!CITE:
1998-17:4
If we continue to believe that we can police the whole world and provide security and right every wrong, I think it will lead us to our bankruptcy, and just as was mentioned earlier, we receive the same kind of grief when we pretend that we can impose economic conditions on other countries.
!CITE:
1998-17:5
We, as a wealthy Nation, are expected to bail out other countries who have overextended themselves and they get into trouble. At the same time, we put economic rules and regulations on them and resentments are turned back toward us. The Arabs in the Middle East do not understand our foreign policy because there have been numerous U.N. resolutions, but it is only this one particular resolution that we have felt so compelled to enforce.
!CITE:
1998-17:6
And the real irony of all this is that first we use the United Nations as the excuse to go in. Then, the United Nations gets a little weak on their mandates, and they themselves do not want to go in. So it is a U.N. resolution that we try to enforce, and then when it is shown that it is not a good resolution, the U.N. then backs away from it. So there is no unanimous opinion in the U.N., I think further proving that this is a poor way to do foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-17:7
And those who would like to do more bombing and pursue this even more aggressively tend to agree with that. They do not like the idea that we have turned over our foreign policy making to an international body like the United Nations.
!CITE:
1998-17:8
So this, to me, is a really good time to make us stop and think should we do this? I certainly think that our foreign policy in the interests of the United States should be determined by us here in the Congress, and then some will argue, well, it is not up to Congress to deal in foreign policy. That is up to a President. But that is not what is in the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-17:9
As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us.
!CITE:
1998-17:10
And this is the reason why I have introduced a resolution that would say that we do have the authority to withdraw the funds from pursuing this bombing, and there is another resolution that the gentleman from Maryland will mention here shortly dealing with that same subject, because we do have the responsibility, and we, especially in the House, are closest to the people.
!CITE:
1998-17:11
We have to be up for reelection every 2 years, and if we listen to the polls that say that 70 percent of the American people want this war, at the same time if we fail to go home and talk to our people and find out that most Americans do not want this war and there is no good argument for it.
!CITE:
1998-17:12
The whole idea that we can immediately go over there and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction when we helped build the weapons up in the first place, and if we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not more concerned about the 25,000 nuclear warheads that have fallen into unknown hands since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Our allies in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and we have China to worry about. What did we do with China? We give them more foreign aid.
!CITE:
1998-17:13
So there is no consistent argument that we can put up that all of a sudden Saddam Hussein is the only threat to world peace and it is in our interest to go in there and take him out. It just does not add up. If he really was a threat, you would think his neighbors would be the most frightened about this, and yet the neighbors are urging us not to do it. They are urging us to take our time, back off and wait and see what happens.
!CITE:
1998-17:14
We, in the United States, so often are involved in conflicts around the world, and one of the things that we urge so many to do is sit down and talk to each other. We ask the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland to talk, we ask the Croats and the Serbs to talk, we ask the Jews and the Arabs to talk; why is it that we cannot do more talking with Saddam Hussein? Instead, we impose sanctions on him which does nothing to him, solidifies his support, rallies the Islamic fundamentalists while we kill babies. There is now a U.N. report that shows that since the sanctions, well over a half a million children died from starvation and lack of medicines that we denied them.
!CITE:
1998-17:15
So I think that there is every reason in the world for us to reassess this policy. There is a much more sensible policy. What we need is more time right now. There is no urgency about this. We did the bombing in the early 1990s, and by the way, I can see this as a continuation of that single war. But since that time with inspections, even the President claims that they have gotten rid of more weapons since the war ended than occurred with the war.
!CITE:
1998-17:16
So if there is no military victory in sight by bombing and only great danger, what is the purpose? Why can we not continue with more negotiations and more inspections? And they say, well, we cannot trust Hussein. Well, that may be true. But looking at it objectively when we finished in 1991 our policy was to encourage the Kurds and the Shiites to rebel, and we implied that we would be there, and what happened? We were not there. Thousands and thousands of Shiites and Kurds were just wiped out because we misled them, similar to our promises that we made to the Cubans in the early 1960s.
!CITE:
1998-17:17
So we do not gain the respect of the world by, one, saying, well, we cannot trust anything he says. Of course not, we cannot trust it. But we have to be realistic, and can they trust us, as well, because our record is not perfectly clean.
!CITE:
1998-17:18
I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BARTLETT).
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-18:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman very much for participating.
!CITE:
1998-18:2
Early on, I talked about a policy of nonintervention; and I would like to talk a little bit more about that. Because some might construe that if you have a policy of nonintervention, it means you do not care; and that is not the case. Because we can care a whole lot.
!CITE:
1998-18:3
There are two very important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of nonintervention, they do it. One, we believe in the rule of law and we should do it very cautiously, and that is what we are bound by here in the Congress. So that is very important.
!CITE:
1998-18:4
The other one is a practical reason, and that is that there is not very good evidence that our intervention does much good. We do not see that intervention in Somalia has really solved the problems there, and we left there in a hurry.
!CITE:
1998-18:5
We have spent a lot of money in Bosnia and the other places. So the evidence is not very good that intervention is involved, certainly the most abhorrent type of intervention, which is the eager and aggressive and not-well-thought-out military intervention. That is obviously the very worst.
!CITE:
1998-18:6
I would argue that even the policy of neutrality and friendship and trade with people, regardless of the enemy, would be the best.
!CITE:
1998-18:7
Of course, if you are involved in a war or there is an avowed enemy, declared enemy, that is a different story. For the most part, since World War II, we have not used those terms, we have not had declared words, we have only had “police actions,” and, therefore, we are working in a never-never limbo that nobody can well define.
!CITE:
1998-18:8
I think it is much better that we define the process and that everybody understands it.
!CITE:
1998-18:9
I would like to go ahead and close with a brief summary of what we have been trying to do here today. It was mentioned earlier, and I want to reemphasize it, something that has not been talked about a whole lot over this issue, has been the issue of oil. It is oil interests, money involved.
!CITE:
1998-18:10
As I stated earlier, we were allies with Hussein when we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran, and yet, at the same time, the taking over of the Kuwait oil fields was something that we could not stand, even though there has not been a full debate over that argument. We have heard only the one side of that, who drew the lines and for what reason the lines were drawn there and whose oil was being drilled. There is a major debate there that should be fully aired before we say that it is the fault of only one.
!CITE:
1998-18:11
But it is not so much that it was the crossing of borders. I do believe that oil interests and the huge very, very important oil fields of Iraq and what it might mean to the price of oil if they came on has a whole lot to do with this.
!CITE:
1998-18:12
We did not worry about the Hutus and the Tutus in Africa. A lot of killing was going on there; 1 million people were being killed. Where was our compassion? Where was our compassion in the killing fields of Cambodia? We did not express the same compassion that we seem to express as soon as oil is involved.
!CITE:
1998-18:13
We cannot let them get away with the repetition of “we got to get the weapons of mass destruction.” Of course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I would say we have done rather well getting rid of the weapons there. They are a much weaker nation militarily than they were 10 years ago, and those kind of weapons are around the world, so that, as far as I am concerned, is a weak argument.
!CITE:
1998-18:14
Another subject that is not mentioned very often, but the prime minister of Israel just recently implied that, hopefully, we will pursue this policy of going in there and trying to topple this regime. I can understand their concerns, but I also understand the concerns of the American taxpayers and the expense of the American lives that might be involved. So I can argue my case.
!CITE:
1998-18:15
But even taking it from an Israeli point of view, I do not know how they can be sure it is in their best interests to go over there and stir things up. They are more likely to be bombed with a terrorist bomb if we go in there and start bombing Iraq. If we do, Israel will not stand by as they did once before. They told us so.
!CITE:
1998-18:16
So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in.
!CITE:
1998-18:17
Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy.
!CITE:
1998-18:18
It is not difficult for me to come down on the side of arguing for peace. Peace is what we should be for. That does not mean you give up your military, but you use your military more wisely than we have over the past 30 or 40 years. You use it for national defense.
!CITE:
1998-18:19
Today we have a powerful military force, but a lot of people do not think we are as strong in defense as we used to be. So, yes, we are stronger than others, but if we have a failed and a flawed policy and a military that has been weakened, then we are looking for trouble.
!CITE:
1998-18:20
So even the practical arguments call for restraint and a sensible approach, for debate and negotiations. It is for this reason I think for the moment we can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to Iraq and came back with something that is at least negotiable, and that the American people will think about and talk about. Hopefully this will lead not only to peace immediately in this area, but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion about the wisdom of a foreign policy of continued perpetual interventionism and involvement in the internal affairs of other nations.
!CITE:
1998-18:21
If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military-industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.
!TITLE:
Access To Energy
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, recently, a national newsletter focusing on science, technology and energy policy highlighted the small town of Seadrift, Texas located in my District.
!CITE:
1998-19:2
While focusing on Seadrift this newsletter article (Access to Energy) went on to make important points regarding the contributions which science and technology have made to freedom and industry and to the quality of life of people everywhere.
!CITE:
1998-19:3
Moreover, the article outlines how certain radicals would shut off technological benefits in the name of protecting earth at the expense of the humans who live on this planet. I commend this article to every Member and insert it in the record as an extension hereof.
!CITE:
1998-19:4
[From Access to Energy, February 1998]
SEADRIFT
Near the Gulf of Mexico, on the road between Houston and Corpus Christi, is the town of Victoria, Texas — one of the oldest settlements in the western United States. Thirty-five miles southeast of Victoria, rising out of the mists that roll in from the Gulf near the town of Seadrift, is one of America’s great petrochemical plants, built by Union Carbide in 1954 and later expanded several times.
!CITE:
1998-19:5
I feel that I know this plant well, since I have a large framed aerial photograph of it on the wall beside me along with a matching framed artist’s drawing of the plant before it was built. Under the artist’s drawing is the aluminum hard hat of the man who was in charge of the design and construction of this plant and partially responsible for its operation during the first four years — my father, Edward H. “Ted” Robinson. His most trusted and valued co-worker at that time, Arnold Graham, still lives in Victoria, remembering their efforts.
!CITE:
1998-19:6
Ted Robinson went on to lead teams of engineers who designed and built similar Union Carbide plants in Puerto Rico, Scotland, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, and India. He is buried in an alpine glacier near the top of Mont Blanc on the border between France and Italy, which contains the remains of the Air India Boeing 707 that crashed there on January 24, 1966. The cause of this crash is not known for certain. It is believed to have been the work of assassins that killed the Indian physicist Bhaba, who was then head of the nuclear energy program of India and was also on the airplane.
!CITE:
1998-19:7
The original plant at Seadrift produced primarily polyethylene. It now produces additional products. This plant is a part of the vast infrastructure of chemical plants, built by the generation of Americans now in their 80s and the generations before them, that supplies the chemicals upon which our technological civilization depends. Along with the dams, bridges, foundries, mines, wells, mills, factories, railroads, research laboratories, computers, and other technological installations that have been built by the past several generations of Americans, these plants form the technological superstructure upon which our science, technology, and economic freedom depend.
!CITE:
1998-19:8
The capital required to build these things was supplied by the savings of tens of millions of people, who set aside part of the money they had earned and invested it in the free market in hopes of making a profit. It was also built by the profits retained by the corporations themselves. Capital alone did not, however, build the industries — people did. These people were led by unusual individuals whose love of science and technology dominated their personal lives and drove them and those around them to ever greater accomplishments.
!CITE:
1998-19:9
Archibald MacLeish told me many years ago that the thing that impressed him most about human beings was their amazing ability to love — and he was not thinking of the shallow phenomenon that dominates the lyrics in the cacophony of “pusic” (word invented by a musician friend) which pollutes most of America’s radio stations.
!CITE:
1998-19:10
Each person has an enormous capacity to love — in many different ways. In some individuals, a part of this love is intensely directed toward science and technology. My father, for example, was simply head-over-heels in love with chemical plants (and with my mother, but that is another story). He lived and breathed their design and construction. When not in use for food, our kitchen table was covered with blueprints. He had no hobbies or avocations — the building of chemical plants was his vocation and all of his avocations combined. And, as a result of this all-consuming love, he built superb plants.
!CITE:
1998-19:11
I have seen this sort of love in a few other individuals. Mrs. Merrifield, the wife of R. Bruce Merrifield, who was the first man to synthesize an enzyme, described her husband’s love affair with each of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids — a love that enabled him to link them together in ways never before accomplished.
!CITE:
1998-19:12
Linus Pauling, regardless of the low state of his personal and professional ethics, was completely in love with the structures of molecules. The incredible joy Linus felt as he pursued three-dimensional, semi-quantitative explanations for the structures of molecules and, later, for the structures of atomic nuclei was the greatest of all the scientists I have known. He was supremely happy when calculating or describing the properties of chemical bonds.
!CITE:
1998-19:13
Scientists work largely alone or with a few other people. Those who build industries work with large numbers of people. These prime builders, driven by their love for their work, are usually not the most well-liked, but they are often the most respected. It is their job to make our industrial world work — regardless of the personal foibles of those whom they must direct in doing this work. Their personal love for their work is the driving force that motivates them.
!CITE:
1998-19:14
All of us are beneficiaries of science and technology. We live lives that are much longer and are filled with seemingly endless pleasures, experiences, and freedoms that would not be available without technology. Even the “warmers” who gathered in Kyoto to bemoan and attack the world’s hydrocarbon technology dropped in by way of airplanes belching demon carbon dioxide.
!CITE:
1998-19:15
Now, virtually all of our technology is under serious attack. From our lumber mills, farms, and ranches to our dams, power plants, and factories, all are under assault. Our enemies belong to a peculiar form of pagan religion. Petr Beckmann called it the “green religion.” This is not a new religion. The animal, plant, and earth worship ascendant today (partially at the expense of animals, plants, and the earth, which are, on balance, actually harmed by this mania) is fundamentally the same as that which arose periodically among the ancients, as chronicled, for example, in the Old Testament.
!CITE:
1998-19:16
This religion is now preached in our schools, our press, and our political institutions. It is, primarily, a religion of death. Technology, in the view of these zealots, has committed a terrible sin. It has made possible the lives of billions of human beings — human beings whom they believe to be alive at the expense of worshiped plants and animals. (The fact that technology enhances the lives of plants and animals is suppressed by the professional enviro religious agitators.)
!CITE:
1998-19:17
It is the moral obligation of every American — each living and benefiting from freedom and technology; each obligated to pass these blessings on to future generations; and each entrusted with a vote in the fate of the great American experiment — to stop this mania.
!CITE:
1998-19:18
Seadrift and the tens of thousands of like accomplishments must not be destroyed — at least not without a terrible fight.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-20:2
Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only consult 1996’s welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national data base.
!CITE:
1998-20:3
Another example of the abuse of the Social Security number is a provision in tax law requiring a spouse paying alimony furnish the IRS with the Social Security number of the spouse receiving alimony.
!CITE:
1998-20:4
There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens.
!CITE:
1998-20:5
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation’s founders.
!CITE:
1998-20:6
Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
!TITLE:
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
!CITE:
1998-21:2
Our founding fathers formed our government to ensure that no single person could have complete power or authority over any aspect of government; to give anyone that kind of power is to invite tyranny.
!CITE:
1998-21:3
I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Sproul’s article. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution: an oath which we must take seriously if we are to promote liberty, peace and civil society.
!CITE:
1998-21:4
BOMBING THE CONSTITUTION
By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
When was the last time the United States went to war? That’s not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a “police action.” Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.
!CITE:
1998-21:5
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?
!CITE:
1998-21:6
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above “non-wars” however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?
!CITE:
1998-21:7
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the “War Powers Act” which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that’s not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.
!CITE:
1998-21:8
Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action.
!CITE:
1998-21:9
And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren’t wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they’re in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that’s war.
!CITE:
1998-21:10
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I’m not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can’t read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-21:11
These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.
!TITLE:
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
!DATE:
26 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2460, The Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Setting aside the vital and relevant question of whether the enumerated powers and tenth amendment allow the federal government to make possession of electronic scanning devices criminal, another aspect of this bill should have met with harsh criticism from those who hold individual liberties in even some regard.
!CITE:
1998-22:2
Under current “anti-cloning” law, prosecutors must prove a defendant intended to use scanning equipment illegally, or have an “intent” to defraud. This bill shifts the burden of proof of “innocent use” from the prosecutor to the defendant.
!CITE:
1998-22:3
The United States Constitution prohibits this federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the persecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to ten years).
!CITE:
1998-22:4
This radical departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” warrants opposition to this bill.
!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
!DATE:
5 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act H.R. 3339. This legislation would condition the continuation of farm subsidies on the maintenance of rice production. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy will continue to flow in spite of an end to production.
!CITE:
1998-23:2
Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to “wean” landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are “something for nothing” subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.
!CITE:
1998-23:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by this legislation they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers.
!CITE:
1998-23:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
!CITE:
1998-23:5
America’s rice farmers are among the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. Our rice producers can compete with anyone absent such hurdles and this bill will help remove one. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations which would like access to rice produced in America. Further we should eliminate the burdensome taxes regulations on America’s farmers to insure increased market access and a healthy farming community in the these United States.
!TITLE:
Birth Defects Prevention Act
!DATE:
10 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers.
!CITE:
1998-24:2
For most of the past thirty years, I have worked as physician specializing in obstetrics. In so doing, I delivered more than 4,000 infants. Despite what I believe to be a somewhat unique insight on the topic of birth defect prevention, today, I address the house as a Congressman rather than as a physician.
!CITE:
1998-24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?
!CITE:
1998-24:4
In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the “defense and welfare” clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8.
!CITE:
1998-24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.
!CITE:
1998-24:6
Jefferson, in one of his most famous remarks, when addressing the issue of whether to grant a federal charter to a mining business, recognized below the slippery slope of a lax interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause:
!CITE:
1998-24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]
!CITE:
1998-24:8
Cleary, while engaging in such congressional activism makes “clean work,” it also makes for an oppressive national government involved in every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Remember that in engaging in such activism, the next liberty upon which the Congress infringes, may be your own.
!CITE:
1998-24:9
I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this “road to serfdom” albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, “preventing birth defects”. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer’s notion of a national government of limited powers.
!CITE:
1998-24:10
For these reasons I oppose S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997.
!TITLE:
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
!DATE:
10 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming.
!CITE:
1998-25:2
Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie?
!CITE:
1998-25:3
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova “without question a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?
!CITE:
1998-25:4
Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, “All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.” What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.
!CITE:
1998-25:5
All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions.
!CITE:
1998-25:6
The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.
!CITE:
1998-25:7
Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-25:8
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
!CITE:
1998-25:9
Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.
!CITE:
1998-25:10
This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world’s natural resources?
!CITE:
1998-25:11
Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.
!CITE:
1998-25:12
Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.
!CITE:
1998-25:13
Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
!TITLE:
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
!DATE:
17 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues two House concurrent resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow.
!CITE:
1998-26:2
The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
!CITE:
1998-26:3
The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months, and each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended.
!CITE:
1998-26:4
Currently, it is the President’s position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date for this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble.
!CITE:
1998-26:5
Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.
!CITE:
1998-26:6
There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot.
!CITE:
1998-26:7
So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionism foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm’s way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger.
!CITE:
1998-26:8
Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves.
!CITE:
1998-26:9
So it is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by imposing and sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region?
!CITE:
1998-26:10
So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.
!CITE:
1998-26:11
So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.
!CITE:
1998-26:12
I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region.
!CITE:
1998-26:13
But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President.
!TITLE:
Bombing Iraq
!DATE:
18 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.
!CITE:
1998-27:2
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-27:3
The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.
!CITE:
1998-27:4
Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency.
!CITE:
1998-27:5
Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.
!CITE:
1998-27:6
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.
!CITE:
1998-27:7
The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.
!CITE:
1998-27:8
Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm’s way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable.
!CITE:
1998-27:9
We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.
!TITLE:
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
!DATE:
26 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
!CITE:
1998-28:2
MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED
The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.
!CITE:
1998-28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
!CITE:
1998-28:4
In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions.
!CITE:
1998-28:5
UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization. Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony “back dues” which we supposedly “owe” this organization. Congressman ROSCOE BARTLETT put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. BARTLETT’s legislation.
!CITE:
1998-28:6
LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES
We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.
!CITE:
1998-28:7
This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a “deal” has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.
!CITE:
1998-28:8
THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN”
The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle.
!CITE:
1998-28:9
“PEACEKEEPING”
This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our “police the world” program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.
!CITE:
1998-28:10
ADDTIONALLY
This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.
!CITE:
1998-28:11
Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
!CITE:
1998-28:13
CONCLUSION
Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
!TITLE:
Unfortunate Passage Of Foreign Affairs Conference Report
!DATE:
27 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs conference report was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. For weeks, arms had been twisted because the votes were not available to pass it. This surprised some and pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue.
!CITE:
1998-29:2
But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed.
!CITE:
1998-29:3
It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified.
!CITE:
1998-29:4
Events surrounding the passage of the foreign affairs conference report occurring yesterday should not make any of us proud.
!TITLE:
Illegal Wars
!DATE:
31 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SKAGGS) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much his work in this effort.
!CITE:
1998-30:2
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is “best part.” By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm’s way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there.
!CITE:
1998-30:3
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.
!TITLE:
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
!DATE:
31 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill to further fund, at the expense of airports and Section 8 Housing Assistance, the unconstitutional effort to “police the world.” Having submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund the “police the world” aspects of this bill only to be denied in the Rules process, I must oppose final passage of this supplemental Appropriations bill.
!CITE:
1998-31:2
One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-31:3
Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport funding to be spent on our “police-the-world” program.
!CITE:
1998-31:4
It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-31:5
I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
!CITE:
1998-31:6
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-31:7
For these reasons I must oppose this bill which provides additional funding for exactly these purposes.
!TITLE:
On Regulating Credit Unions
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I am an original cosponsor of 1151. But the original bill never came to the committee. It was quickly substituted with another bill, which I think is seriously weakened from the original bill that we had. So I would like to let all those 207 Members who are cosponsors that are not voting on the bill that they signed their name onto know that there are two major changes that have occurred.
!CITE:
1998-32:2
One is that the multiple common-bond position of 1151 has been removed. Now it is restrictive. And the other thing is there has been a lot of regulations added, and I think that we should consider long-term economic consequences and political consequences of opening up the door to regulations and also what it means down the road as far as insurance goes.
!CITE:
1998-32:3
For instance, it was bragged upon, the bill was bragged upon because the regulations of safety and soundness was good. We have had a lot of regulation, for safety and soundness for banks and savings and loan, and yet the FDIC and FSLIC had to be bailed out. The insurance deposit for credit unions was started by private money, no government subsidies, and has never been bailed out. So now we are going to overlook the credit unions and make sure they are safer and sound.
!CITE:
1998-32:4
I think it is the wrong direction that we are going. I think the whole notion that we are going to have the Community Reinvestment Act applied to the credit unions is going in the wrong direction. This is a form of credit allocation and, actually, long term, will weaken the credit unions.
!CITE:
1998-32:5
I would like to speak up for the credit unions and say this bill has been weakened to such a degree that they have opened up the doors, and down the road they are going to be treated like the banks, and down the road they will probably receive the taxation that banks have.
!CITE:
1998-32:6
I resent the idea that the competitors and the small banks, who do not like the competition of the credit unions, they say, well, let us tax them and regulate them. So, in a way, we have accommodated the banks by adding the regulations onto the credit unions.
!CITE:
1998-32:7
I do not think this is going in the right direction, and we should seriously consider a no vote on this legislation.
!TITLE:
Credit Union Membership Access Act
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since I was the first one in this Congress to step forward and introduce legislation affirming the NCUA’s position allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions and signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 1151 as originally written, I feel that I am in a disagreement among friends. I must oppose this bill because of the new regulations it imposes on credit unions and does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of the banks.
!CITE:
1998-33:2
While I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions, the new regulations imposed upon them demonstrate a decision to follow the wrong path to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions. A better approach would have been to lead the congress towards less taxes and less regulation. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the committee, follows a path of more regulations and leads toward higher taxes on credit unions while the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, which I introduced a year ago, lowers taxes and regulations on banks. While H.R. 1151 does not impose new, direct taxes on credit unions, I fear that that day is just around the corner.
!CITE:
1998-33:3
The NCUSIF was the only deposit insurance fund started without any federal seed money and the credit unions never came to Washington for a taxpayer-funded bailout. In fact, allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions enhanced their safety and soundness. This bill will add new “safety and soundness” and CRA-like regulations on credit unions. These regulations will add a burdensome regulatory cost. This cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher fees, higher interest rates and less service. It is the marginal consumer who will lose the most when this bill becomes law.
!CITE:
1998-33:4
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulations can only be larger.”
!CITE:
1998-33:5
These regulations, under which the credit unions will now suffer a greater burden with the passage of this bill, impose a disproportionate burden on smaller institutions. These increased, and unfairly imposed, regulations will stifle the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector and contribute to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. As the introduction of new entrants into the market becomes more costly, smaller institutions will face a marginally increased burden and will be more likely to consolidate. “The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
!CITE:
1998-33:6
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. CRA compliance costs for small banks was $1 billion and 14.4 million employee hours in 1991. For each $1 million in assets, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.
!CITE:
1998-33:7
The IBAA study identifies the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. In short, this bill takes the most costly and least beneficial and useful regulation on banks and adds a similar, new regulation on credit unions. Reducing the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks would have been a better approach.
!CITE:
1998-33:8
In addition to all of the problems associated with the obligations and requirements that the government regulations impose on the productive, private sectors of the economy, the regulations amount to a government credit allocation scheme. As Ludwig von Mises explained well in the Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, governmental credit allocation is a misdirection of credit which leads to malinvestment and contributes to an artificial boom and bust cycle. Nobel laureate Frederick A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard expounded on this idea.
!CITE:
1998-33:9
The unintended consequences of the passage of this bill, as written, will be to stifle the formation on new credit unions, consolidate current credit unions into larger ones better able to internalize the cost of the additional regulations, and lower productivity and economic growth due to the misallocation of credit. This increased burden must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The increased costs on credit unions this bill imposes will lead to a reduction of access to credit unions, higher fees and higher rates. These provisions are anti-consumer. The marginal consumers, those who currently can only receive a loan from a credit union without the burden of CRA, are the ones who will suffer under the provision of this bill. I hope that the bill can be improved as the process continues and lead to less regulations and other taxes on banks rather than more regulations and other taxes on credit unions.
!TITLE:
Building Highways Is State Function
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-34:2
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.
!CITE:
1998-34:3
Of course today we do not debate that issue in that light, but I think we see the results of doing something that was not proper. Today it is very expensive, it is very bureaucratic, and we have seen tonight in the debate how it has become politicized.
!CITE:
1998-34:4
So if we are looking for a fair way to build highways, a more efficient way to build highways, I think this is the answer. This is not going backwards, this is going forward. This would be the first time we could have a national highway system really controlled by the States where it is supposed to be. The States would have more money, not less money. They would have less regulation, not more regulation.
!CITE:
1998-34:5
This is much better than block grants. This is returning responsibility to the States. I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.
!TITLE:
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
!DATE:
21 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-35:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the House is about to implement rule changes that will require random drug testing of all House Members and staff. Drug usage in this country, both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be done.
!CITE:
1998-35:2
The real issue here is not drugs but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the fourth amendment.
!CITE:
1998-35:3
A broader but related question is whether or not it is the government’s role to mold behavior, any more than it is the government’s role to mold, regulate, tax and impede voluntary economic contractual arrangements.
!CITE:
1998-35:4
No one advocates prior restraint to regulate journalistic expression, even though great harm has come over the century from the promotion of authoritarian ideas. Likewise, we do not advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs, however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem.
!CITE:
1998-35:5
Yet we casually assume it is the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly. A large number of us in this Chamber do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it is the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun.
!CITE:
1998-35:6
Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable efforts at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect for our privacy. It is not worth it.
!CITE:
1998-35:7
While some Members are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a fairer society, there are others here who are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a good society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians and bureaucrats know what is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched, why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well? Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner as well. Especially we who champion the cause of limited government ought not be the promoters of the roving eye of Big Brother.
!CITE:
1998-35:8
If we embark on this course to check randomly all congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it might be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good is inconsistent, to say the least. Unfortunately, the administration is now pursuing an anti-tobacco policy that will be even less successful than the ill-fated Federal war on drugs.
!CITE:
1998-35:9
I have one question for my colleagues: If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty and our own innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents, which we have sworn an oath to do?
!CITE:
1998-35:10
Those promoting these drug testing rules are well motivated, just as are those who promote economic welfare legislation. Members with good intentions attempting to solve social problems perversely use government power and inevitably hurt innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few.
!CITE:
1998-35:11
It is said that if one has nothing to hide, why object to testing? Because, quite simply, we have something to keep: our freedom, our privacy and the fourth amendment. The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary drug testing, whereby each individual and each Member of the House makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this.
!TITLE:
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
!DATE:
22 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this very important issue to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-36:2
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentlemen and ladies on the other side who have spoken out against this resolution, because I have to compliment them. They are brave to be able to come up here and speak their beliefs and really come out on the position of being for taxes. If I did something like that, I could not return to Texas. But I have to admire them for their willingness to come here and take a pro-tax position, so I think that is to be commended.
!CITE:
1998-36:3
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be worrying.
!CITE:
1998-36:4
The other contention we have and have to think about is if we do not already follow the Constitution in so many ways, why are we going to follow it next time? Nevertheless, this is a great debate. I am glad I am a cosponsor. I am glad it was brought to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-36:5
We do have to remember there is another half to taxation and that is the spending half. It is politically unpopular to talk about spending. It is politically very popular to talk about the taxes. So, yes, we are for lower taxes, but we also have to realize that the government is too big. They are consuming 50 percent of our revenues and our income today, and that is the problem.
!CITE:
1998-36:6
Government can pay for these bills in three different ways. One, they can tax us. One, they can borrow. And one, they can have the tax of inflation, which is indeed a tax. We are dealing here only with one single tax. But eventually, when we make a sincere effort to get this government under control, we will look at all three areas.
!CITE:
1998-36:7
We will limit the borrowing power. We will limit the ability of this Congress to inflate the currency to pay the bills. And we certainly will follow the rules of this House and this Constitution and not raise taxes.
!TITLE:
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
!DATE:
22 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, education in this country is facing a crisis. If we look at our schools carefully, we find out that there are a lot of drugs in our schools, actually murders occur in our schools, rape occurs in our schools, it is infested with teenage pregnancies. There is total disrespect for authority in many of our schools, and there is no good record to show that the academic progress is being made that is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-37:2
The President happens to believe that if we have national testing, this will solve all our problems. And now he is addressing these very, very serious problems that we have in our schools with saying that if we can only get these kids not to smoke a cigarette, maybe we are going to solve these educational problems.
!CITE:
1998-37:3
I would say that he is going in the wrong directions. These are serious problems and we must do something, but pretending that we are going to crack down on kids testing a cigarette, as bad as it is, is not going to solve our problems.
!CITE:
1998-37:4
I have a couple suggestions to make on what we can do to improve the educational system. I have a bill that I introduced recently. It is H.R. 3626. It is called the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This is a bill I think everybody in this body could support.
!CITE:
1998-37:5
What it does, it takes away taxation on any youngster who makes some money at one of these 4–H or Future Farmers of America fairs. When they sell their livestock, believe it or not, we go and tax them. Just think of this. The kids are out there trying to do something for themselves, earn some money, save some money and go to school; and what do we do as a Congress, we pick on the kids, we go and we tax these kids.
!CITE:
1998-37:6
I talked to a youngster just this past weekend in the farm community in my district, and he told me he just sold an animal for $1,200 and he has to give $340 to the U.S. Government. Now, what are we doing, trying to destroy the incentive for these youngsters assuming some responsibility for themselves? Instead, what do we do? We say the only way a youngster could ever go to college is if we give them a grant, if we give them a scholarship, if we give them a student loan. And what is the record on payment on student loans? Not very good. A lot of them walk away.
!CITE:
1998-37:7
There is also the principle of it. Why should the Federal Government be involved in this educational process? And besides, the other question is, if we give scholarships and low-interest loans to people who go to college, what we are doing is making the people who do not get to go to college pay for that education, which to me does not seem fair. It seems like that the advantage goes to the individual who gets to go to college, and the people who do not get to go to college should not have to subsidize them.
!CITE:
1998-37:8
I think it is unfair it pick on these kids. I think it is time that we quit taxing any youngster who makes some money at a 4–H fair or Future Farmers of America fair where they are selling their livestock and trying to earn money to go to college.
!CITE:
1998-37:9
I think it is proper to say that they should have no taxation without representation. They are not even old enough to vote, and here we are taxing them. I mean that is not fair.
!CITE:
1998-37:10
So I am hoping that I get a lot of cosponsors for this bill, because there sure are a lot of youngsters around the country trying to assume responsibility for themselves.
!CITE:
1998-37:11
I do not believe for 1 minute the President’s approach that we are going to assume that every kid is going to grow up to be a smoke fiend, and if we do not do something quickly, we are going to have them developing all these bad habits; at the same time, we see the deterioration of the public educational system.
!CITE:
1998-37:12
Also, I would like to mention very briefly another piece of legislation that would deal with this educational crisis. The Federal Government has been involved in our public schools for several decades. There is no evidence to show that, as we increase the funding and increase the bureaucracy, that there has been any improvement in education. Quite to the contrary, the exact opposite has happened.
!CITE:
1998-37:13
So I would say there is a very good practical case. I know the constitutional argument does not mean much. But the practical case is there is no evidence that what we have done so far has been helpful.
!CITE:
1998-37:14
I have another piece of legislation that would give $3,000 tax credit to every family for every child that they want to educate by themselves. So if they would spend any money on their child, whether they are in school or out of school, in private school, at home schooling, they would get this $3,000 credit. I hope my colleagues will take a look at these two pieces of legislation.
!TITLE:
Don’t Bail Out Bankers
!DATE:
23 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to this motion. This should be a very easy vote for all of us; we should all vote no. They already have $35 billion of our money. They want $18 billion more. That is $53 billion.
!CITE:
1998-38:2
Think about it. Some of you would like to spend that on the military, on national defense. That would not be too bad an idea. Others might want to spend it on domestic welfare programs. This would be a better idea than bailing out rich bankers and foreign governments. Besides, there are some of us who would like to give the $53 billion back to the American people and lower their taxes. But to give them another $18 billion does not make any sense.
!CITE:
1998-38:3
Then to come to us and say it will not cost the taxpayers any money is absurd. Why do they come here and try to sneak through this appropriation with a parliamentary trick, if it is not going to cost the taxpayers any money? Certainly it is going to cost the taxpayers money. It adds to the national debt, and we have to pay interest on the national debt. This is a cost.
!CITE:
1998-38:4
Now, the Director of the IMF had an interesting proposal. He said this will not cost us anything because it is coming out of the Central Bank.
!TITLE:
The Bubble
!DATE:
28 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. JONES).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.
!CITE:
1998-39:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the big question is how history will play the current financial situation if all the great wealth accumulated in the last 10 years dissipates in a financial collapse.
!CITE:
1998-39:3
According to an article in The New Republic, Greenspan is not only held in high esteem on Wall Street, he is seen as Godlike. One trader is quoted as saying, “When things go well, I hold Greenspan’s picture between my hands and say, thank you. When things go poorly, I also take the photo in my hands and pray.” And he is not alone on Wall Street in heaping praise on Greenspan. This comes as close to idolatry as one can get.
!CITE:
1998-39:4
Alan Greenspan took over the Fed a few months before the stock market crash of October, 1997. In the 10 years that Greenspan has headed the Fed, $2 trillion of new credit has been created as measured by M3. Banks threatened by bankruptcy in the early 1990s received generous assistance from the Fed policy of low interest rates and rapid credit expansion as a response to the recession of 1991. Fed fund rates were held at 3 percent for well over a year. This generous dose of Fed credit has fueled the 5-year superboom on Wall Street.
!CITE:
1998-39:5
We are endlessly told no inflation exists. But inflation is strictly and always a monetary phenomenon and not something that can be measured by a government consumer or producer price index.
!CITE:
1998-39:6
Even so, there currently is significant price inflation for the fancy homes throughout the country, especially in the New York and Connecticut areas influenced by the New York financial center. CEO compensation is astronomically high, while wages for the common man have been held in check. The cost of all entertainment is not cheap and rises constantly. Art prices are soaring, as is the price of tickets to athletic events. Buying stocks with a 1.8 percent dividend yield is not cheap. These prices are inflated. The cost of education, medicine, and general services are expensive and rising.
!CITE:
1998-39:7
In spite of Government reports showing food prices are not rising, many constituents I talk to tell me food prices are always going up. It seems every family has difficulty compensating for the high cost of living and taxes are always inflating.
!CITE:
1998-39:8
There is no doubt that many Americans know the salaries of the CEOs, athletes and entertainers are astronomically high. The wages of the average working man, though, has not kept up. Workers feel poorer and resentment grows.
!CITE:
1998-39:9
Even with all of Wall Street’s euphoria, Main Street still harbors deep concern for their financial condition and the future of the country. Many families continue to find it difficult to pay their bills, and personal bankruptcies are at a record high at 1,400,000 per year. Downsizing of our large corporations continue as many manufacturing jobs are sent overseas.
!CITE:
1998-39:10
This current financial bubble started in mid-1982. At that time, the money supply, as measured by M3, was $2.4 trillion. Today it is over $5.5 trillion. That is a lot of inflation, and money supply growth is currently accelerating.
!CITE:
1998-39:11
Although the money supply has been significantly increased in the past 16 years and financial prices as well as other prices have gone up, Government officials continue to try to reassure the American people that there is no inflation to worry about because price increases, as measured by the Government’s CPI and PPI, are not significantly rising.
!CITE:
1998-39:12
Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated. If we had an average valuation of the Dow Jones Industrials for the past 87 years, as measured by the PE ratios, the Dow would be a mere 4,100 today, not over 9,000. And the Dow would be much lower yet if we took the average price-to-dividend ratio or the price-to-book ratio.
!CITE:
1998-39:13
The NASDAQ is now selling at 85 times earning. There is no doubt that most stock prices are grossly inflated and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history.
!CITE:
1998-39:14
A lot of foreign money has been used to buy our stocks, one of the consequences of computer-age financial technology and innovations. Our negative trade balance allows foreign governments to accumulate large amounts of our treasury debt. This serves to dampen the bad effect of our monetary inflation on domestic prices, while providing reserves for foreign central banks to further expand their own credit.
!CITE:
1998-39:15
Think of this: Money can be borrowed in Japan at Depression-era rates of 1 percent and then reinvested here in the United States either in more treasury debt earning 5 or 6 percent, or reinvested in our stock market, which is currently climbing at a 20 percent annualized rate. This sounds like a perfect deal for today’s speculators, but there is nothing that guarantees this process will continue for much longer. Perfect situations never last forever.
!CITE:
1998-39:16
Some of the euphoria that adds to the financial bubble on Wall Street and internationally is based on optimistic comments made by our government officials. Political leaders remind us time and again that our budget is balanced and the concern now is how to spend the excess. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the money that is being used to offset the deficit comes from our trust funds.
!CITE:
1998-39:17
In other words, it’s comparable to a corporation stealing from its pension fund in order to show a better bottom line in its day-to-day operations. Government spending and deficits are not being brought under control. Tax rates are at historic highs, and all government taxation now consumes 50 percent of the gross national income.
!CITE:
1998-39:18
It is now commonly believed that the East Asian financial crisis is having no impact on our economy. But it’s too early to make that kind of an assessment. Our president remains popular, according to the polls, but what will it be like if there’s any sign of economic weakness? There could then be a lot of “piling on” and finger pointing.
!CITE:
1998-39:19
PROBLEMS AND VICTIMS
The basic cause of any financial bubble is the artificial creation of credit by a central bank (in this case our Federal Reserve). Artificially creating credit causes the currency to depreciate in value over time. It is important to understand the predictable economic problems that result from a depreciating currency:
!CITE:
1998-39:20
1. In the early stages it is difficult to forecast exactly who will suffer and when.
!CITE:
1998-39:21
2. Inflated currency and artificially low interest rates result in mal-investment that produces over capacity in one area or another.
!CITE:
1998-39:22
3. Wealth generally transfers from the hands of the middle-class into the hands of the very wealthy. (The very poor receiving welfare gain a degree of protection, short of a total destruction of the currency.)
!CITE:
1998-39:23
4. Prices indeed do go up, although which prices will go up is unpredictable, and the CPI and PPI can never be a dependable measurement of a monetary policy driven by loose credit.
!CITE:
1998-39:24
5. The group that suffers the very most is the low-middle-income group (those willing to stay off welfare, yet unable to benefit from any transfer of wealth as stagnant wages fail to protect them from the ravages of the rising cost of living).
!CITE:
1998-39:25
There are probably several reasons why this current economic boom has lasted longer than most others. The elimination of the Soviet threat has allowed a feeling of optimism not felt in many decades, and there has subsequently been tremendous optimism placed on potential economic development of many world markets in this age of relative peace.
!CITE:
1998-39:26
There is also very poor understanding regarding economic interventionism, the system most nations of the world accept today. Today’s interventionism is not close to a free market. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises consistently pointed out that interventionism always leads to a form of socialism, which then eliminates the apparent benefits of interventionism.
!CITE:
1998-39:27
A good example of how interventionism leads to the destruction of a market can be seen in the recent tobacco fiasco. First, the tobacco industry accepted subsidies and protectionism to build a powerful and wealthy industry. Then, having conceded this “nanny” role to the government, Big Tobacco had no defense when it was held liable for illnesses that befell some of the willing users of tobacco products. Now, the current plan of super taxation on tobacco users will allow the politicians to bail out the individual farmers who may be injured by reduced use of tobacco products (destruction of the market). This half-trillion-dollar tax proposal hardly solves the problem.
!CITE:
1998-39:28
Just as in the 1920’s today’s productivity has fooled some economists by keeping prices down on certain items. Certainly computer prices are down because the price of computer-power has dropped drastically, yet this should not be interpreted as an “absence” of inflation. Innovation has kept prices down in the computer industry, but it fails to do so when government becomes overly involved as it has in other technological areas, such as medical technology, where prices have gone up for services such as MRIs and CAT scans, not down.
!CITE:
1998-39:29
LEARN FROM JAPAN
The most important thing to remember is that perceptions and economic conditions here can change rapidly, just as they did last summer in the East Asian countries with the bursting of their financial bubble. They are now in deep recession.
!CITE:
1998-39:30
Even though Japan first recognized signs of difficulty nine years ago, their problems linger because they have not allowed the liquidation of debt, or the elimination of over capacity, or the adjustment for real estate prices that would occur if the market were permitted to operate free of government intervention. The U.S. did the same thing in the 1930s, and I suspect we will do exactly what Japan is doing once our problems become more pressing. With our own problems from the inflation of the last 15 years now becoming apparent, their only answer so far is to inflate even more.
!CITE:
1998-39:31
In its effort to re-energize the economy, the Bank of Japan is increasing its reserves at a 51 percent rate. This may be the greatest effort to “inflate” and economy back to health in all of history. Japan has inflated over the years and will not permit a full correction of their mal-investment. The Bank of Japan is doing everything possible to inflate again, but even with interest rates below 1 percent there are few takers.
!CITE:
1998-39:32
OECD measurements, the M1 and quasi-money have been increasing at greater than 20 percent per year in East Asia. In the United Stats, M3 has been increasing at 10 percent a year. It is estimated that this year the U.S. will have a $250 billion current account deficit — continued evidence of our ability to export our inflation.
!CITE:
1998-39:33
We are now the world’s greatest debtor, with an approximately $1 trillion debt to foreign nations. Although accumulation of our debt by foreign holders has leveled off, it has not dropped significantly. The peak occurred in mid-1997 — today these holding are slightly lower.
!CITE:
1998-39:34
THE CRUELEST TAX OF ALL
This process of deliberately depreciating a currency over time (inflation) causes a loss in purchasing power and is especially harmful to those individuals who save. AIER (American Institute for Economic Research) calculates that 100 million households since 1945 have lost $11.2 trillion in purchasing power. This comes out to $112,000 per household, or put another way, over 5 decades each one of these households lost $2,200 every year.
!CITE:
1998-39:35
Although many households are feeling very wealthy today because their stock portfolios are more valuable, this can change rather rapidly in a crash. The big question is what does the future hold for the purchasing power of the dollar over the next 10 or 20 years?
!CITE:
1998-39:36
THE END IN SIGHT?
Reassurance that all is well is a strategy found at the end of a boom cycle. Government revenues are higher than anticipated, and many are feeling richer than they are. The more inflated the stock market is as a consequence of credit creation, the less, reliable these markets are at predicting future economic events. Stock markets can be good predictors of the future, but the more speculative they become, the less likely it is the markets will reveal what the world will be like next year.
!CITE:
1998-39:37
The business cycle — the boom-bust cycle of history — has not been repealed. The psychological element of trust in the money, politicians, and central bankers can permit financial bubbles to last longer, but policies can vary as well as perceptions, both being unpredictable.
!CITE:
1998-39:38
CENTRAL BANKERS
The goal of central bankers has always been to gain “benefit” from the inflation they create, while preventing deflation and prolonging the boom as long as possible — a formidable task indeed. The more sophisticated and successful the central bankers are as technicians, the larger the bubble they create.
!CITE:
1998-39:39
In recent years, central bankers have had greater “success” for several reasons. First, due to the age in which we live, internationalizing labor costs has been a great deal more convenient. It is much easier for companies to either shift labor from one country to another, or for the company itself to go to the area of the world that provides the cheapest labor. This has occurred with increased rapidity and ease over the past two decades.
!CITE:
1998-39:40
Central bankers have also become more sophisticated in the balancing act between inflation and deflation. They are great technicians and are quite capable of interpreting events and striking a balance between these two horrors. This does not cancel out the basic flaw of a fiat currency; central bankers cannot replace the marketplace for determining interest rates and the proper amount of credit the economy needs.
!CITE:
1998-39:41
Central bankers have also had the advantage of technological changes that increase productivity and also serve to keep down certain prices. It is true that we live in an information age, an age in which travel is done with ease and communication improvements are astounding. All of these events allow for a bigger bubble and a higher standards of living. Unfortunately this will not prove to be as sustainable as many hope.
!CITE:
1998-39:42
THE PRICE OF GOLD
Another reason for the central bankers greater recent success is that they have been quite willing to cooperate with each other in propping up selected currency values and driving down others. They have cooperated vigorously in dumping or threatening to dump gold in order to keep the dollar price of gold in check. They are all very much aware that a soaring gold price would be a vote of no confidence for central-bank policy.
!CITE:
1998-39:43
Washington goes along because it is furtively, but definitely, acknowledged there that a free-market, high gold price would send a bad signal worldwide about the world financial system. Therefore, every effort is made to keep the price of gold low for as long as possible. It’s true the supply-siders have some interest in gold, but they are not talking about a gold standard, merely a price rule that encourages central-bank fixing of the price of gold. Most defenders of the free-enterprise system in Washington are Keynesians at heart and will not challenge interventionism on principle.
!CITE:
1998-39:44
Instead of making sure that policy is correct, central bankers are much more interested in seeing that the gold-price message reflects confidence in the paper money. Thus gold has remained in the doldrums despite significant rising prices for silver, platinum, and palladium. However, be assured that even central banks cannot “fix” the price of gold forever. They tried this in the 1960’s with the dumping of hundreds of millions of ounces of American gold in order to artificially prop up the dollar by keeping the gold price at $35/oz., but in August 1971 this effort was abandoned.
!CITE:
1998-39:45
THE SOLUTION
The solution to all of this is not complex. But no effort is going to be made to correct the problems that have allowed our financial bubble to develop, because Alan Greenspan has been practically declared a god by more than one Wall Street guru. Because Alan Greenspan himself understands Austrian free-market economics and the gold standard, it is stunning to see him participate in the bubble when he, deep down inside, knows big problems lurk around the corner. Without the motivation to do something, not much is likely to happen to our monetary system in the near future.
!CITE:
1998-39:46
It must be understood that politicians and the pressure of the special interests in Washington demand that the current policies of spending, deficits, artificially low interest rates and easy credit will not change. It took the complete demise of the Soviet-Communist system before change came there. But be forewarned: change came with a big economic bang not a whimper. Fortunately that event occurred without an armed revolution . . . so far. The amazingly sudden, economic events occurring in East Asia could still lead to some serious social and military disturbances in that region.
!CITE:
1998-39:47
The key element to the financial system under which we are now living is the dollar. If confidence is lost in the dollar and a subsequent free-market price for gold develops, the whole financial system is threatened. Next year, with the European currency unit (ECU) coming on line, there could be some serious adjustments for the dollar. The success of the ECU is unpredictable, but now that they are indicating some gold will be held in reserve, it is possible that this currency will get off the ground.
!CITE:
1998-39:48
NATIONALISM
However, I continue to have serious reservations regarding the ECU’s long-term success, believing that the renewed nationalism within Europe will not permit the monetary unification of countries that have generally not trusted each other over the centuries. In Germany, 70 percent of the people oppose entering into this new monetary agreement. If economic problems worsen in Europe — currently the unemployment rate in Germany and France is 12 percent — the European union may well get blamed.
!CITE:
1998-39:49
The issue of nationalism is something that cannot be ignored. Immediately after the collapse in East Asia, Malaysia began shipping out hundreds of immigrants from Indonesia as a reaction to their economic problems. Resentment in Germany, France, and England is growing toward workers from other countries.
!CITE:
1998-39:50
The same sentiment exists here in the United States, but it’s not quiet as bad at this particular time because our economy is doing better. But in the midst of a deep recession, the scapegoats will be found and alien workers will always be a target.
!CITE:
1998-39:51
The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority.
!CITE:
1998-39:52
No one has firmly assessed the Y2K problem, but it cannot bode well if a financial crisis comes near that time. Certainly a giant company like Citicorp and Travelers, who have recently merged, could really be hurt if the Y2K problem is real. Since the markets seem to be discounting this, I have yet to make up my own mind on how serious this problem is going to be.
!CITE:
1998-39:53
WASHINGTON MENTALITY
Every politician I know in Washington is awestruck by Greenspan. The article in The New Republic reflects the way many Members of Congress feel about the “success” of Greenspan over the last ten years. Add to this the fact that there is no significant understanding of the Austrian business cycle in Washington, and the likelihood of adopting a solution to the pending crisis, based on such an understanding, is remote.
!CITE:
1998-39:54
Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent. Liberals stick to the old cliche´ that all that’s needed are more welfare benefits. They are, I’m sure, influenced by the fact that if more welfare benefits are handed out, they can count on the Federal Reserve to accommodate them. Unfortunately this will continue to motivate them to argue for a loose monetary policy.
!CITE:
1998-39:55
The debate so often seems only to be who should get the expanded credit, the business-banking community or the welfare recipients who will receive it indirectly through the monetization of an ever-expanding government deficit. In Washington there is a craving for power and influence, and this motivates some a lot more than their public display of concern for helping the poor.
!CITE:
1998-39:56
Whether it’s Japan that tries to inflate their currency to get out of an economic problem, or the East Asian countries facing their crisis, or our willingness to bail out the IMF, resorting to monetary inflation is the only option being considered. We can rest assured that inflation is here to stay.
!CITE:
1998-39:57
With daily pronouncements that inflation is dead, the stage is set for unlimited credit expansion whenever it becomes necessary. Just as deficit spending and massive budgets will continue, we can expect the falling value of the dollar, long term, to further undermine the economic and political stability of this country and the world.
!CITE:
1998-39:58
Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation.
!TITLE:
Clean Needles And Risky Behavior
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It makes no sense to pay somebody, pay for free needles to do something that is currently illegal. It is very questionable whether it will do any good.
!CITE:
1998-40:2
As a physician, I would have to agree with the opposition that a clean needle certainly is better than a dirty needle. I do not think there is a question about that. But I do believe that there is a message sent that if we provide free needles to do something that we are condoning or encouraging it. But there is also a strong moral as well as an economic argument against this.
!CITE:
1998-40:3
What we are talking about here is lowering costs of risky behavior. We are saying that we will pay for the needles to perform this risky behavior. But there is another much larger element that has not been discussed so far, and that has to do with the concept that all risky behavior be socialized; that is, through the medical system, it is assumed that those who do not participate in risky behavior must pay for the costs of the risky behavior, whether it has to do with cigarettes or whether it has to do with drugs or whether it has to do with any kind of safety.
!CITE:
1998-40:4
So, therefore, the argument is that we have to save money in medical care costs by providing free needles. But there is another position, and that is that we might suggest that we do not pay for free needles and we might even challenge the concept that we should not be paying people and taking care of them for risky behavior, whether it is risky sexual behavior or risky behavior with drugs.
!CITE:
1998-40:5
I think this is very clearly the problem, and I do not believe we should be socializing this behavior because, if we do, we actually increase it. If we lower the cost of anything, we increase the incidence of its use. So if the responsibility does not fall on the individual performing dangerous behavior, they are more likely to, and this is just part of it, the idea that we would give them a free needle.
!CITE:
1998-40:6
But there is a moral argument against this as well. Why should people who do not use drugs or do not participate in dangerous sexual procedures and activities have to pay for those who do? And this is really the question, and there is no correct moral argument for this. And the economic argument is very powerful. It says that if we lower the cost, we will increase this behavior.
!CITE:
1998-40:7
But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes. I mean, the whole tobacco argument is dealing with the same issue, that we have to pay for the costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes and, therefore, we have to come in and regulate the tobacco companies and nobody can assume responsibility for themselves.
!CITE:
1998-40:8
Same thing with alcohol and safety. This is the reason we have so much government regulation dealing with helmet laws and seat belts and buzzers and beepers and air bags. So this concept has to be dealt with if we are ever to get to the bottom of this.
!CITE:
1998-40:9
So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.
!TITLE:
Social Security Numbers And Student Loans
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1998-41:2
I rise in support of this rule. It is obviously a very fair rule because I am allowed to offer an amendment later on, so I am pleased to be able to vote for this rule. I have an amendment that I am going to offer in Title I which will be designated so that the Social Security number cannot be used for the electronic personal identifier for any of the programs in this educational bill.
!CITE:
1998-41:3
The American people have become very worried about how often the Social Security number is being used as a national identification number, and we are working quickly toward a time where we have a national identification card. We certainly have abused the Social Security number as being the number. It was never intended that way. That is not what was intended when the Social Security was started that this number would be a universal number for everything.
!CITE:
1998-41:4
In 1974, it was stated rather explicitly that the Social Security number should not be used for programs like this, and I would like to just quote the Privacy Act of 1974: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
!CITE:
1998-41:5
I think this is a good idea, because today we are very much aware of the fact that if a company, if a loaning company, or if one is going into a store to buy something, and they get one’s name and one’s Social Security number, one knows that they can call up more information about somebody than they know about themselves. I think this is a serious threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and we should be cautious about using the Social Security number. It is being used all the time.
!CITE:
1998-41:6
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to this Congress, I was an obstetrician delivering babies, and babies cannot leave the hospital these days without a Social Security number. So they are born, get a Social Security number, they do not leave the hospital without it, and do my colleagues know that one cannot have a death certificate without a Social Security number? They are everyplace. It is an intrusion on our privacy. We do not need to use a Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-41:7
When I was in the Air Force, we used to have an identification number, but now, today, it is the Social Security number. Not too many years ago a law was passed here in the Congress that mandates that each State licensing agent for our automobile says that one has to have a Social Security number. So now they will be cross-checking with Social Security number and all of our driver’s license numbers. We are losing our privacy in this country. The American people know it. We do not need this number to be used in this program for it to be successful, and we should move very cautiously, and I hope I can get support for this amendment so that we do not use the Social Security number as the electronic personal identifier.
!TITLE:
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 50, line 13, at the end of paragraph (1) add the following new sentence: “The Secretary shall not use the social security account numbers issued under title II of the Social Security Act as the electronic personal identifier, and shall not use any identifier used in any other Federal program as the electronic personal identifier.”.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
!CITE:
1998-42:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a complex amendment. It merely states that Social Security numbers cannot be used to identify the individuals who will be participating in this program.
!CITE:
1998-42:3
This is a common practice, obviously, today. The Social Security number is used just for about everything. As a matter of fact, many Americans think way too often.
!CITE:
1998-42:4
There are 40 Federal programs now where the Social Security number is required. Not only that, the Federal Government now has been mandating the uses of the Social Security number for similar purposes even on State programs such as obtaining our driver’s license.
!CITE:
1998-42:5
The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act.
!CITE:
1998-42:6
The Privacy Act concerns were expressed through this legislation in 1974 stating that, yes, we have overstepped our bounds, there is too much intrusiveness, and we are moving in the direction of a national identification card, something that is unknown and should be unheard of in a free society.
!CITE:
1998-42:7
We should not have an identity card to carry our papers to get jobs, open bank accounts, move about the country, but we are moving rapidly in that direction. This is a token effort to make this point and require the government to use some other identification method for this program. It can be done. There is nothing sacred about the Social Security number. The program can be run without the use of Social Security.
!CITE:
1998-42:8
I would like to just read very briefly some passages from the Privacy Act of 1974 to make my colleagues stop and think about what we are doing.
!CITE:
1998-42:9
“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
!CITE:
1998-42:10
If one does not give his Social Security number, one is in big trouble in this country. One cannot even get out of the hospital if one is born without a Social Security number, and one cannot open up a savings account for a child if one does not have a Social Security number. One is not even allowed to die at this time without a Social Security number, because one needs a Social Security number on one’s death certificate. Talk about cradle to grave.
!CITE:
1998-42:11
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual disclose his Social Security number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is listed and what uses will be made of it.” We do not have that happening. Numbers are just demanded, and too many people have complied with it, and we go along with it, but more and more Americans are getting upset with this monitoring of everything that we do through the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-42:12
Every single government program is now requiring it. Like I said, there are 40, 40 programs. Immigration, think about how the immigration programs are monitored through Social Security numbers. There have been attempts to use the Social Security number to monitor people in their voting. We do not need this. We do not need more government surveillance in promoting this kind of a program. The program can survive, can work.
!CITE:
1998-42:13
Some would argue, well, possibly, just possibly, the efficiency of the program may be diminished. That will be the argument that I will probably hear. The efficiency of the program will be diminished. Well, if this is the argument, then we are saying that we are here to protect the efficiency of the State. I see an important role for us to be here is to protect the privacy and the civil liberties of the citizen. So we are in conflict. Which should our role be, to protect privacy and civil liberties, or is it to protect the efficiency of the State?
!CITE:
1998-42:14
Well, it is not difficult for me to figure that out, and it is not like I am saying this program would not exist, it is just saying that we will put a small amount of surveillance on this where the government is not so casual in expanding its role for the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-42:15
In the Privacy Act of 1974, in the findings, they made a comment which I think is very important, and this is in 1974 when it was not really bad. “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.”
!CITE:
1998-42:16
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a positive amendment; this is an amendment to protect civil liberties of every American.
!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-43:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.
!TITLE:
Claims Opposition Debate Time
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the legislation?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. MARTINEZ) opposed to the legislation?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legislation.
!CITE:
1998-44:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
!TITLE:
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-45:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not so much in any objection to what the goals are. The goals are very laudable. The first time I read this resolution, I was in agreement with everything until the very end. Then I had some disagreements with it.
!CITE:
1998-45:3
I have taken this time so I would have adequate time to explain my position and why I oppose this bill. Obviously, this country is facing a serious problem with drugs. As a physician, I can attest to it. We have major problems in this country, something should be done. But I thought it was necessary to take some time to point out that what we have done for 20 to 25 years has not been all that good. And I see this resolution as an endorsement of the status quo, not an introduction of one single new idea about how to approach this problem. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to try to get people to think about maybe an alternative some day that we might look at, because so far the spending of the money and the abuse of our civil liberties that has occurred with the war on drugs has not accomplished a whole lot.
!CITE:
1998-45:4
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.
!CITE:
1998-45:5
In 1937, it was decided that possibly we should restrict marijuana, even for medical use, and even then it was not assumed that this was a Federal prerogative. It was not banned, it was not outlawed. It was still assumed that it was the responsibility of the States to deal with problems of drugs and marijuana and law enforcement.
!CITE:
1998-45:6
In 1937, and I am sure some of my conservative colleagues might be interested in this because it was the great FDR who decided to impose a great tax on marijuana, putting $100 tax on a pound of marijuana, essentially making it illegal. And even today those States who would like to legalize marijuana even for the sick and dying AIDS patients and the cancer patients are not even permitted to. It is because we have carelessly assumed that all regulation and all controls and all policing activities should be done here in Washington.
!CITE:
1998-45:7
I am here just to suggest quite possibly our attack on drugs has not been correct, that we have possibly made some mistakes. Maybe we spent some money that we have not gotten our dollars’ worth. Maybe we are going in the wrong direction.
!CITE:
1998-45:8
It is estimated that we have spent over $200 billion in the last 25 years fighting drugs. And yet it is the same old thing again. Play on the emotions of the people, condemn drug usage, which I do. As I said as a physician, I know they are horrible. But as a politician and somebody in the legislature, we should think about the efficiency and the effectiveness of our laws.
!CITE:
1998-45:9
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.
!CITE:
1998-45:10
The first “whereas” of this resolution, I strongly agree with. It says, “Whereas recently revealed statistics demonstrate America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans drug-free.” This is my point. This is conceded by everyone. We are not winning this fight, so why pursue the same policies over and over again, and especially since there are some shortcomings with the policy. Not only have they not been effective, there are some serious shortcomings, shortcomings on civil liberty and property rights and other things.
!CITE:
1998-45:11
We ought to put the war on drugs in a proper perspective. Yes, it is easy to talk about a heroin addict and a crime committed and people narrowing in on one instance, but we ought to look at this in a proper manner.
!CITE:
1998-45:12
There is talk that there are 20,000 deaths with illegal drugs. But that, in the best of my estimates, includes all the violent drugs which, to me, are a consequence of the war on drugs.
!CITE:
1998-45:13
I have statistics that say there is about 6,000 people who die from overdosing and taking illegal drugs. A horrible figure. It is horrible. Nobody should be using these drugs. But let us put this in a different perspective.
!CITE:
1998-45:14
We lose 37,000 people on highways every year, government-managed highways. And 36,000 people die each year from guns. But we do not take the guns away from the innocent people because there are gun accidents and gun deaths. It is 36,000 in comparison to 6,000.
!CITE:
1998-45:15
There is one other figure that is astounding that was in the media, recorded in the media here the last couple of days. The medical profession has a responsibility here. It is estimated that we are losing 106,000 people a year. These are reports from 1994; 106,000 a year from drug reactions, legal prescription drugs coming from doctors.
!CITE:
1998-45:16
If we want to go after a problem, let us go after the highways, let us go after the guns, let us go after the drug reaction. What about alcohol? There are 200,000 deaths, approximately, from alcohol. But do we come here and propose that we go back to prohibition? No. We do not. It is a serious problem. It is really the big problem.
!CITE:
1998-45:17
Cigarette killing may be up to 400,000 a year. But if we make the suggestion that we want to go after them, then we have a President that says, yes, we will go after the kids that are taking a puff on the cigarette and apply the same rules.
!CITE:
1998-45:18
There are 10 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed each year. It is probably higher because most of those cases do not get reported. So that is a serious problem. I mean, look for serious problems.
!CITE:
1998-45:19
To dwell on the drug war and casually and carelessly violate civil liberties, as we so often do, and have confiscation and seizure of property that we just blow it off because we are fighting the drug war, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need some new ideas and new proposals on this drug war. I hope today to have time to make some of these suggestions on what we might do about the drug war.
!CITE:
1998-45:20
Former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano said, not too long ago, he was comparing the drug war to the problem of alcohol, he said: The drug war is a grain of sand compared to alcohol.
!CITE:
1998-45:21
If we look at the college issue, the overwhelming drug that is a problem on college campuses is alcohol. Yet, 99 percent of our concerns and our expression of horror is directed toward a narrower group of people; that is, on the illegal drugs.
!CITE:
1998-45:22
Why might it be that we dwell on the illegal drugs? Alcohol of course is legal, but why would it be that maybe this Congress might not be as aggressive against the abuses of alcohol and the deaths? If we have compassion, should we show less compassion to the 200,000 people dying of alcohol deaths or the 400,000 dying from cigarette deaths? But we do.
!CITE:
1998-45:23
It just happens that those who produce alcohol happen to come to Washington quite frequently. They make donations to candidates. They have a lobby. They do have a presence here in Washington. Not only those who make the alcohol, but what about the hotels or the restaurants?
!CITE:
1998-45:24
I mean, if we even thought about doing anything or saying anything about alcohol, of course we would hear from the hotels and the restaurants, and maybe rightfully so, if we argue that people have a right to have a glass of wine with their dinner in their hotel or restaurant. But the point I am trying to make is that we dwell on certain things out of proportion to its danger.
!CITE:
1998-45:25
Also, one reason why we might not talk about the tremendous abuse with alcohol is the fact that, quite possibly, a few Members of Congress actually participate in using such a thing. There are now probably 13 million people in this United States suffering from abuse or alcoholism, a serious, serious number.
!CITE:
1998-45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.
!CITE:
1998-45:27
It is failing, and we are not willing to stand up and say, hey, maybe we are doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to have another idea. Maybe we ought to have a new approach.
!CITE:
1998-45:28
I think when we talk about not only looking at this outer perspective of other problems that we have in the country, but also the serious consequences of the drug laws which we all should be concerned about because it involves property rights and civil liberty rights, maybe we can get around to the point of saying maybe could there be a new approach.
!CITE:
1998-45:29
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-46:2
Mr. Speaker, as I said, in most of our history, the control of drug abuse has never been a Federal issue. This is only very recent. This does not diminish one’s concern. It is respecting the Constitution. It is also emphasizing the fact that the more we have centralized our control and the more that we have tried to enforce the thing at the national level, the worse the problem has gotten.
!CITE:
1998-46:3
I have many conservatives say we have an educational problem, and all they want to do is throw more money at it. I cannot see how this is different. Yes, we have a major problem. But it gets worse, and all we do is throw more money at it with exactly the same programs.
!CITE:
1998-46:4
My goal today is just to suggest, just to bring it to the Congress’ attention, that possibly we are not doing the right things. If we would ever come to admitting that, then maybe we will not have to suffer the abuse of how the war on drugs goes awry.
!CITE:
1998-46:5
For instance, we have had this war on drugs, and there is no evidence even that we have been able to keep drugs out of our prisons. So maybe there is something we are doing wrong. Maybe we are treating a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Maybe the cause is not legislatively correctable. That is a possibility. Obviously there is a problem there, but we need to think about it. We need to take a consideration, and not ever to write off those of us who might say we do not endorse the current approach as being one that might not be concerned about the issue.
!CITE:
1998-46:6
Obviously I am concerned. I have five children, and I have 13 grandchildren. I am a physician. I have a great deal of concern. But I have also been involved and I have seen people who have suffered, and, therefore, I have probably a slightly different approach to the problem.
!CITE:
1998-46:7
But I do think that we ought to look for a minute at the harm done with the war on drugs. So often there are victims from the war on drugs that go unnoticed. How often have we seen on television, how often have we read in our newspaper of a drug bust with hooded FBI agents and hooded DEA agents barging into the wrong apartment and really tearing the place up, confiscating property of people who have never committed a crime?
!CITE:
1998-46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.
!CITE:
1998-46:9
Our job here is to protect the civil liberties of individuals. Yes, we ought to try to influence behavior. Yes, we ought to make laws against illegal behavior; national, when necessary, but local when the Constitution dictates it. At the rate we are going, we are making very, very little progress.
!CITE:
1998-46:10
I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues.
!CITE:
1998-46:11
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.
!CITE:
1998-46:12
I would like to suggest in closing some of the things that we can consider. First, let us consider the Constitution, for instance. We have no authority to create a Federal police force. That is not in the Constitution. So we ought to consider that. It is a State problem. It is a State law enforcement problem. Most of our history, it was dealt that way.
!CITE:
1998-46:13
I think education is very important; people who know what is going on. We should, if anything, be emphasizing the educational process. Possibly my medical background influences me into what I am going to say next; and that is, could we conceive of looking at some of this problem of addiction as a disease rather than a criminal act? We do this with alcohol. Maybe that would help the problem.
!CITE:
1998-46:14
Is it conceivable that we are looking at a symptom that the drug problem, the drug craze, is a reflection of moral values in the society?
!CITE:
1998-46:15
We cannot get rid of teenage illegitimacy by writing a national law against teenage pregnancy. We are not likely, we have not been able to get rid of drug usage, teenage drug usage, by writing national laws and coming down with the armed might of the Federal Government. So I do not think the current process is going to work.
!CITE:
1998-46:16
Kids go on drugs because they are seeking happiness, they are alone, they are in broken families. This is a problem that will not be solved by more laws and a greater war on drugs. We have 80,000 Federal policemen now carrying drugs. Character is what is needed. Laws do not create character. This does not dismiss us from expressing concern about this problem, but let us not make the problem worse.
!CITE:
1998-46:17
In 1974, Switzerland passed a law that said that the doctor could prescribe medication for addicts. I, as a physician, if an addict comes into my office and I agree to give him drugs which would support his habit, because I figure for him to go out on the street and shoot somebody for it is a little worse than me trying to talk him into a program by giving him drugs for a while, I am a criminal. I am a criminal today if I decide that somebody should use or could use marijuana if they are dying with cancer or AIDS and they are dying of malnutrition because they cannot eat. There should be a little bit of compassion in this movement.
!CITE:
1998-46:18
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.
!CITE:
1998-46:19
We have too many people on drugs, and this resolution makes my point. The war on drugs has failed. Let us do something different. Let us not pursue this any longer.
!CITE:
1998-46:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.
!CITE:
1998-47:2
But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful.
!CITE:
1998-47:3
I am concerned not only about the drug usage, obviously, and the fact that the war has failed, but with those things that are so negative when it comes to violation of liberties.
!CITE:
1998-47:4
The other day there was a story in the media that said there was a child suffering from an acute attack of asthma. Now, there was another asthmatic in the class, and she did what seemed to come natural to her: She went and gave her a whiff of her nebulizer and the girl immediately came out of her acute asthma attack. She was quickly apprehended under a Federal statute saying that she was disobeying the Federal law on the use of drugs.
!CITE:
1998-47:5
Now, it might be advisable to caution a young child about giving medications to another, but this was very obvious and very clear. She happened to have been a hero with the other students and she was certainly a hero for the girl she helped.
!TITLE:
Support The National Right To Work Act
!DATE:
6 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for 80 percent of Americans who support the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.
!CITE:
1998-48:2
The National Right to Work Act repeals those sections of Federal law that give union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
!CITE:
1998-48:3
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
!CITE:
1998-48:4
Passage of the National Right to Work Act would be a major step forward in ending Congress’ illegitimate interference in the labor markets and liberating America’s economy from heavy-handed government intervention. Since Congress created this injustice, we have the moral responsibility to work to end it, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-48:5
The 80 percent of Americans who support right-to-work deserve to know which Members of Congress support worker freedom. I, therefore, urge the congressional leadership, the majority of which have promised to place a National Right to Work Act on the floor, to fulfill their promise to the American people and schedule a time certain for a vote on H.R. 59.
!TITLE:
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
!DATE:
6 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 because it furthers the federal stranglehold over higher education. Instead of furthering federal control over education, Congress should focus on allowing Americans to devote more of their resources to higher education by dramatically reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before this Congress. For example, the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act (HR 2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per year in a pre-paid tuition plan without having to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling more Americans to afford college. This is just one of the many fine proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans so they can afford a higher education for themselves and/or their children. Other good ideas which I have supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher education included in last year’s budget, and the administration’s HOPE scholarship proposal, of which I was amongst the few members of the majority to champion. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.
!CITE:
1998-49:2
Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot exist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions dependent upon taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by numerous provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal funding is being used as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.
!CITE:
1998-49:3
Federal spending, and thus federal control, are dramatically increased by HR 6. The entire bill has been scored as costing approximately $101 billion dollars over the next five years; an increase of over 10 billion from the levels a Democrat Congress Congress authorize for Higher Education programs in 1991!. Of course, actual spending for these programs may be greater, especially if the country experiences an economic downturn which increases the demand for federally-subsidized student loans.
!CITE:
1998-49:4
Mr. Chairman, one particular objectionable feature of the Higher Education Amendments is that this act creates a number of new federal programs, some of which where added to the bill late at night when few members where present to object.
!CITE:
1998-49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher training.” The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,” states and localities to adopt certain methods of education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and staffers.
!CITE:
1998-49:6
As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up, some Committee members did attempt to protect the interests of the taxpayers by refusing to support authorizing this program unless the spending was offset by cuts in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who might have otherwise opposed this program supported it at the Committee mark-up because of the offset.
!CITE:
1998-49:7
While having an offset for the teacher training program is superior to authorizing a new program, at least from an accounting perspective, supporting this program remains unacceptable for two reasons. First of all, just because the program is funded this year by reduced expenditures is no guarantee the same formula will be followed in future years. In fact, given the trend toward ever-higher expenditures in federal education programs, it is likely that the teacher training program will receive new funds over and above any offset contained in its authorizing legislation.
!CITE:
1998-49:8
Second, and more importantly, the 10th amendment does not prohibit federal control of education without an offset, it prohibits all programs that centralize education regardless of how they are funded. Savings from defunded education programs should be used for education tax cuts and credits, not poured into new, unconstitutional programs.
!CITE:
1998-49:9
Another unconstitutional interference in higher education within HR 6 is the provision creating new features mandates on institutes of higher education regarding the reporting of criminal incidents to the general public. Once again, the federal government is using its funding of higher education to impose unconstitutional mandates on colleges and universities.
!CITE:
1998-49:10
Officials of the Texas-New Mexico Association of College and University Police Departments have raised concerns about some of the new requirements in this bill. Two provisions the association finds particularly objectionable are those mandating that campuses report incidents of arson and report students referred to disciplinary action on drug and alcohol charges. These officials are concerned these expanded requirements will lead to the reporting of minor offenses, such as lighting a fire in a trash can or a 19-year-old student caught in his room with a six-pack of beer as campus crimes, thus, distorting the true picture of the criminal activity level occurring as campus.
!CITE:
1998-49:11
The association also objects to the requirement that campus make police and security logs available to the general public within two business days as this may not allow for an intelligent interpretation of the impact of the availability of the information and may compromise an investigation, cause the destruction of evidence, or the flight of an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location, date, and time for a crime may identify victims against their will in cases of sexual assault, drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The informed views of those who deal with campus crime on a daily basis should be given their constitutional due rather than dictating to them the speculations of those who sit in Washington and presume to mandate a uniform reporting system for campus crimes.
!CITE:
1998-49:12
Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be put “on display.” For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a claim of sexual assault “* * * through the university, rather than the county prosecutor’s office, so that she could avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *” Assaulting the privacy rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral.
!CITE:
1998-49:13
This bill also contains a section authorizing special funding for programs in areas of so-called “national need” as designated by the Secretary of Education. This is little more than central planning, based on the fallacy that omnipotent “experts” can easily determine the correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies teaches that a bureaucrat in Washington cannot determine “areas of national need.” The only way to know this is through the interaction of students, colleges, employers, and consumers operating in a free-market, where individuals can decide what higher education is deserving of expending additional resources as indicated by employer workplace demand.
!CITE:
1998-49:14
Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 expand the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education by increasing federal control over higher education, as well as creating a new teacher training program. This bill represents more of the same, old “Washington knows best” philosophy that has so damaged American education over the past century. Congress should therefore reject this bill and instead join me in working to defund all unconstitutional programs and free Americans from the destructive tax and monetary policies of the past few decades, thus making higher education more readily available and more affordable for millions of Americans.
!TITLE:
National Police State
!DATE:
12 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
!CITE:
1998-50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
!CITE:
1998-50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a “rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.
!CITE:
1998-50:4
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.
!CITE:
1998-50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
!CITE:
1998-50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.
!CITE:
1998-50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-50:8
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1998-50:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
!CITE:
1998-50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
!CITE:
1998-50:11
As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
!CITE:
1998-50:12
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
!TITLE:
FDIC Problem
!DATE:
13 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-51:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Chairman’s amendment and in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
!CITE:
1998-51:2
There are two positions that one could take on this. We could have zero integration, which this amendment would do; or we could think about the market. The market would just allow it to exist.
!CITE:
1998-51:3
Earlier, somebody quoted Hamilton as being opposed to an integration of commerce in banking. Well, of course, at that particular time in history we had the Jeffersonians, and they were strongly in support of the market and even against central banking.
!CITE:
1998-51:4
So I think, considering all things, that I cannot get my 100 percent, and we certainly do not want zero. We need to move in a direction, so I would say this very modest request is very justified.
!CITE:
1998-51:5
I think this FDIC insurance is something we should be concerned about, but that is a different issue for the moment. I object to that, but I do not believe this will solve the FDIC problem.
!CITE:
1998-51:6
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.
!CITE:
1998-51:7
This is the size of the Glass-Steagall Act, a few pages, in order to solve a problem that did not exist. But we have been living with this for all these years. And now, over these several years, we have been trying to solve the problem. Now, this is the size of the solution. This is H.R. 10, this is the version of the Committee on Commerce as well as the version of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that went to the Committee on Rules.
!CITE:
1998-51:8
We need to look at the fundamental cause of our problems and not jump off a cliff and do the wrong thing. I strongly support the Roukema amendment.
!TITLE:
The Indonesia Crisis
!DATE:
19 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-52:1
BACKGROUND
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei stock average is still down 60% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing Southeast Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stock market “crash” — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe and then to America should not be summarily dismissed.
!CITE:
1998-52:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY
Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.
!CITE:
1998-52:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1998-52:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
!CITE:
1998-52:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all crony “capitalism.”
!CITE:
1998-52:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION
One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion) is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. It’s duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.
!CITE:
1998-52:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.
!CITE:
1998-52:8
Blame is misplaced. Rarely is the Central Bank and paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes to zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen, now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.
!CITE:
1998-52:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the IMF and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF bailout. IMF policy on aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.
!CITE:
1998-52:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allows crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.
!CITE:
1998-52:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the blood in the streets of Jakarta — soon to spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with it.
!CITE:
1998-52:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to “take care” of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls results whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
!CITE:
1998-52:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED
The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened the Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, but it is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know; the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevails in Indonesia?
!CITE:
1998-52:14
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
!CITE:
1998-52:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989 and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, and establishing sound monetary policy has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out, that won’t work, is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
!CITE:
1998-52:16
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
!CITE:
1998-52:17
REFUSAL
In the approximately 8 months since the crisis hit Indonesia there has been no serious look at the underlying cause — monetary inflation brought about by a central bank. Nor has any serious thought gone into the internationalization of credit as United States exports of billions of dollars, and thus our own inflation, to most nations of the world who hold these dollars in reserve and use them to further inflate their own currencies. Our huge negative trade balance and foreign debt is not considered by conventional wisdom to be relevant to the Asian currency problems, yet undoubtedly it is. True reform to deal with the growing worldwide crisis can only be accomplished by us first recognizing the underlying economic errors that caused the current crisis.
!CITE:
1998-52:18
The philosophy of the free market, holds a lot of answers, yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding Southeast Asian crisis.
!CITE:
1998-52:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing the same bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.
!CITE:
1998-52:20
MESSAGE
What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do all the countries of the world, we are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to deliberately destroy it, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
!CITE:
1998-52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.
!TITLE:
United Nations Money Came From Defense Department
!DATE:
20 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I would like to compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-53:2
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. One, the other side of the aisle has mentioned that this is only a small amount. We are just introducing this idea. We are only giving a couple of dollars now. It reminds me of the arguments in 1913, let us have an income tax, but it is only going to be a fraction of 1 percent. We know what happened. There are plans for what they are doing. This is the time to stop it.
!CITE:
1998-53:3
I think another point that we ought to make is, how did they get any money already? They got it from the Defense Department. We did not even appropriate the money. They have already started it. They have used American taxpayers’ money without a direct appropriation from this Congress, and it is about time we stopped that type of legislation. That is the point. Where did the money come from? The Defense Department. It goes over into the United Nations for meddling, meddling overseas. It is taken away, literally, from defense.
!CITE:
1998-53:4
We have a problem in this country for national defense. We have Air Force people who do not get flying time. Our men are not trained. We do not have the right equipment. We continuously spend all our money overseas, endlessly getting involved in Bosnia and Somalia, and wherever.
!CITE:
1998-53:5
I think it is policy that needs to be addressed. It is the policy that allows our administration to do this, because there is too much complicity in allowing the United Nations to assume our sovereignty.
!CITE:
1998-53:6
That is the point here. The American people deserve better protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more quickly than ever.
!CITE:
1998-53:7
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-53:8
It is up to the U.S. Congress to do something about that; that is, to take away the funding. This is a great amendment. I cannot conceive of anybody voting against this amendment and pretending that this is only a little bit.
!TITLE:
The Indonesia Crisis
!DATE:
22 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei (Tokyo) stock average is still down 57% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing East Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stocke market “crash” here — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed.
!CITE:
1998-54:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY
Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air. New money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something nearly all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.
!CITE:
1998-54:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of a correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influence the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1998-54:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
!CITE:
1998-54:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all “crony capitalism.”
!CITE:
1998-54:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION
One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion), is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. Its duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.
!CITE:
1998-54:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.
!CITE:
1998-54:8
Blame is misplace. Rarely is the Central Bank and irredeemable paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes toward zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen who are now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.
!CITE:
1998-54:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF-led bailout. IMF policy only aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.
!CITE:
1998-54:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allow crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.
!CITE:
1998-54:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the discontent, with blood in the streets of Jakarta, soon spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively-sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with marshal law.
!CITE:
1998-54:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to take care of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls result whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
!CITE:
1998-54:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED
The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened. The Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the United States is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know: the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevail in Indonesia?
!CITE:
1998-54:14
The United States has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military does not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world — and pretend we have all the answers? Putting aside the question of whether there is proper authority or not, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The IMF is seen as an extension of the United States and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military that with the demonstrators. No government, even the questionable ones, likes to see any dissolution of governmental power. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not as if the U.S. Government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
!CITE:
1998-54:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989, and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, including the establishment of a sound monetary policy, has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out will work. It won’t work — it is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
!CITE:
1998-54:16
The Indonesian Government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not as good as gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, with its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board tied to the U.S. dollar is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
!CITE:
1998-54:17
REFUSAL
In the approximately eight months since the crisis hit Indonesia, there has been no serious look at the underlying cause: monetary inflation brought about by a central bank. Nor has any serious thought gone into the internationalization of credit as United States exports of billions of dollars, and thus our own inflation, to most nations of the world which hold these dollars in reserve and use them to further inflate their own currencies. Our huge negative trade balance and foreign debt is not considered by conventional wisdom to be relevant to the Asian currency problems, yet undoubtedly it is. True reform to deal with the growing worldwide crisis can only be accomplished by us first recognizing the underlying economic errors that caused the current crisis.
!CITE:
1998-54:18
The philosophy of the free market holds a lot of answers — yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding East Asian crisis.
!CITE:
1998-54:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing a similar bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.
!CITE:
1998-54:20
MESSAGE
What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do almost all the countries of the world. We are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar, will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to destroy it deliberately, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
!CITE:
1998-54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit
!TITLE:
Can’t Vote For Amendment
!DATE:
4 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-55:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-55:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Today we are having a debate on a very serious problem that does deserve our attention. We can do this by supporting this rule.
!CITE:
1998-55:3
I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.
!CITE:
1998-55:4
Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
!CITE:
1998-55:5
This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was changed, I now am unable to vote for it.
!CITE:
1998-55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.
!CITE:
1998-55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.
!CITE:
1998-55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.
!CITE:
1998-55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.
!CITE:
1998-55:10
Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely make things worse.
!TITLE:
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
!DATE:
10 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not a complicated amendment. It merely redesignates the priorities of governments as they line up in the receiving end of a bankruptcy. These are unsecured debts.
!CITE:
1998-56:2
Basically the way the law states now and the way the bill is written is that the IRS is the top government agency that is going to receive the money, and then the State and then the local government. My suggestion in my amendment is very simple and very clear and makes a very strong philosophic point, is why should we hold the IRS in such high esteem? Why should they be on top of the list? Why should the money leave the local districts and go to Washington? Why should it go into the coffers of the IRS, funding programs that are basically unconstitutional when there are so many programs that we are not doing and take it out of our school districts?
!CITE:
1998-56:3
If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:4
Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:5
One of the arguments used against this amendment is, “Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.” Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:6
Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:7
In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed.
!CITE:
1998-56:8
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2
!DATE:
10 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-57:2
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond by saying I certainly do recognize responsibility of the U.S. Congress in dealing with national legislation dealing with bankruptcy and that bankruptcy laws should be uniform and fair. But this does not preclude us from thinking about the particulars of a piece of legislation designating the importance of the different governmental bodies, so everything I say about emphasizing local government over Federal Government is certainly legitimate and does not contradict in any way the notion that we should not deal with this at all because certainly we have this authority to do so.
!CITE:
1998-57:3
And it still remains to be seen with much of a cost at all involved here; I happen to think not very much, but I would like to emphasize once again the importance of dealing with cutting spending rather than always resorting to say how do we pay something, pay for something, by merely raising taxes elsewhere if we happen to work in a benefit on a program such as this.
!CITE:
1998-57:4
So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.
!TITLE:
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
!DATE:
11 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country’s national police force and further “justify” the federal Justice Department’s intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications.
!CITE:
1998-58:2
Mr. Chairman, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding the notion of federal crimes and paving the way for a deluge of federal criminal justice activity. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federally “criminalizing” all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a process by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on child-related sexual crime irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
!CITE:
1998-58:3
In the name of the politically popular cause of protecting children against sex crimes, the Members of Congress will vote on whether to move the Nation further down the path of centralized-Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress hoping to gain political favor with those embracing some politically popular cause. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 is no exception.
!CITE:
1998-58:4
Who, after all, can stand on the house floor and oppose a bill which is argued to make the world safer for children with respect to crimes? It is a sad commentary when members of this body only embrace or even mention federalism when it serves their own political purposes and, at the same time, consciously ignore federalism’s implications for these politically popular causes. It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All that now seems to matter is that Congress pass a new law.
!CITE:
1998-58:5
Crimes committed against children (as well as adults) are a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world. I know there are few things more tragic than crimes committed against young people. In fact, the types of crimes this bill attempts to federally punish are among the most despicable criminal acts committed. Undoubtedly, strong measures and penalties need to be imposed to deter and punish these criminal actors. Nevertheless, the threshold question in Congress must always be: “under what authority do we act?” Should we cease to concern ourselves about the Constitution in all that we do and moved by emotion speak only of vague theoretical outcomes?
!CITE:
1998-58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.
!CITE:
1998-58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.
!CITE:
1998-58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.
!CITE:
1998-58:9
I too find most despicable the criminal acts this bill attempts to make federal crimes, but under the U.S. Constitution criminal law jurisdiction lies with the States. This is why I oppose yet another step toward a national police state. And because I fear the bill’s implications regarding federal monitoring of voice, mail and data communications, I cannot support H.R. 3494.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
16 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform has been a major topic for months on the House floor and, I understand, will continue to be a major debate. The last time the Congress has passed any major reforms dealing with campaigning was in the 1970s, and every problem that we had back then we have today, only it is much worse. Today, in order to comply with the law, we fill out tens of thousands of pages of forms, there is total misunderstanding of what the rules and regulations are, there are numerous fines being levied against many Members and many candidates, there are many inaccuracies put into the record mainly because a lot of people cannot even understand the rules and regulations, and I would not be surprised if just about everybody who ever filled out a financial reform at one time or the other inadvertently had some inaccuracies. All the challenges to these records have always been done by opponents and usually politicized, and it has not been motivated for the best of reasons.
!CITE:
1998-59:2
New reforms are now being proposed, and I predict they will be no more successful than the numerous rules and regulations that we imposed on candidates in the 1970s. The reason I say this is that we are treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptom, of course, is very prevalent. Everybody knows there is a lot of big money that influences politics. I understand that there is $100 million a month spent by the lobbyists trying to influence our votes on the House floor and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence our elections. So some would conclude, therefore, that is the case, we have to regulate the money, the money is the problem.
!CITE:
1998-59:3
But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller government, less influence of the government on everything that we do in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is always being involved.
!CITE:
1998-59:4
Not only domestically, but Congress is endlessly involved in many affairs overseas. We are involved by passing out foreign aid, getting involved in programs like the IMF and World Bank. We are interfering in internal affairs militarily in over a hundred countries at the present time. So there is a tremendous motivation for people to come here and try to influence us. They see it as a good investment.
!CITE:
1998-59:5
More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an incentive to invest.
!CITE:
1998-59:6
Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one’s money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse.
!CITE:
1998-59:7
Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon.
!CITE:
1998-59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
!CITE:
1998-59:9
Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.
!TITLE:
Individuals with Disabilities Act
!DATE:
16 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Res. 399, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs, should be this Congress’ top priority.
!CITE:
1998-60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.
!CITE:
1998-60:3
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K–12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child’s education.
!CITE:
1998-60:4
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children’s special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child’s parent.
!CITE:
1998-60:5
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America’s schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Res. 399 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.
!TITLE:
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
!DATE:
17 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have long held that the real victims of U.S. trade policy, and specifically of our various trade embargoes, are American citizens who hope to sell goods abroad, most especially our agricultural producers. The intended victims of sanctions are corrupt foreign rulers but they always find a way to get goods from our competitors and when they fail to do so they simply pass along any suffering to their internal political opponents.
!CITE:
1998-61:2
But, as I said, somebody is negatively affected. A recent issue of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s “Farm Bureau News” contains a headline story which does a fabulous job of explaining how these embargoes adversely affect our American Farmers and Ranchers. In this front page story the Farm Bureau News masterfully details the true impact of trade embargoes.
!CITE:
1998-61:3
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a very rural, agriculturally-based district. My constituents are well aware of the importance of opening export markets for America’s agricultural producers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place in the RECORD this story from the Farm Bureau News in hopes that people in the Administration, as well as in this Congress will begin to reconsider destructive embargo policies which only harm our nation’s farmers and other producers including my constituents.
!CITE:
1998-61:4
AG TAKES BIGGEST HIT FROM EMBARGOES
Trade sanctions and embargoes for the purpose of social reform or other reasons hurt American farmers and ranchers more than any other sector of the economy, Farm Bureau told a House Agriculture subcommittee last week.
!CITE:
1998-61:5
“Farm Bureau strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts,” said Ron Warfield, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau. “We believe that opening trading systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability.”
!CITE:
1998-61:6
President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan after those countries detonated nuclear devices. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R– Ore.) and ranking minority member Charlie Stenholm (D–Texas) have urged Clinton to exempt food and agricultural commodities from those sanctions. Pakistan is an important market for U.S. agricultural products, ranking third in purchases of U.S. wheat.
!CITE:
1998-61:7
Sens. Dick Lugar (R–Ind.), Pat Roberts (R– Kan.), Larry Craig (R–Idaho) and Max Baucus (D–Mont.) have also asked Clinton to exclude agricultural exports from the sanctions.
!CITE:
1998-61:8
Warfield, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, told the panel that when sanctions are imposed, agriculture typically bears the brunt through lost sales and gains a reputation as an unreliable supplier. While American agriculture loses through sanctions and embargoes, its toughest competitors win by picking up those markets.
!CITE:
1998-61:9
Warfield noted that when the United States placed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, American farmers lost $2.3 billion in farm exports. He said the effects continue to be felt.
!CITE:
1998-61:10
“When the United States cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, other suppliers — France, Canada, Australia and Argentina — stepped in,” Warfield said. “They expanded their sales to the Soviet Union, ensuring that U.S. sanctions had virtually no economic impact. Russia still appears to restrict purchases of American wheat, fearing the United States may again use food exports as a foreign policy weapon.”
!CITE:
1998-61:11
Just the threat of sanctions can provoke trading partners into a retaliatory stance and threaten U.S. agricultural exports, the farm leader pointed out.
!CITE:
1998-61:12
Warfield said Farm Bureau supports a bill (H.R. 3654) by Re. Tom Ewing (R–Ill.) that would prevent selective agricultural embargoes. The legislation, he said, would prevent useless embargoes that destroy American export markets while creating opportunities for other countries. Warfield said engagement with other nations, not sanctions and embargoes, should be the preferred option.
!CITE:
1998-61:13
“The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade,” Warfield said, “Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change — not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors.”
!TITLE:
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
!DATE:
18 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the Conference Report of the Parent and Student Saving Account Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite having been an original cosponsor, and having been quite active in seeking support, of the original House bill. I remain a strong supporter of education IRAs, which are a good first step toward restoring parental control of education by ensuring parents can devote more of their resources to their children’s education. However, this bill also raises taxes on businesses and expands federal control of education. I cannot vote for a bill that raises taxes and increases federal power, no matter what other salutary provisions are in the legislation.
!CITE:
1998-62:2
I certainly support the provision allowing parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the excessive tax burden imposed on America’s families by Congress. Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America’s hardworking, taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these same parents!
!CITE:
1998-62:3
I also support the provisions extending the exclusion of funds received from qualified state tuition programs, and excluding monies received from an employer to pay for an employee’s continuing education from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans to spend more of their resources on education, rather than hand their hard-earned money over to the taxman.
!CITE:
1998-62:4
Returning control over educational resources to the American people ought to be among Congress’ top priorities. In fact, one of my objections to this bill is that is does not go nearly far enough in returning education dollars to parents. This is largely because the deposit to an education IRA must consist of after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRAs would be so much more beneficial if parents could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing contributions to be made from pretax dollars would provide a greater incentive for citizens to contribute to education IRAs for others’ underprivileged children.
!CITE:
1998-62:5
Furthermore, education IRAs are not the most effective means of returning education resources to the American people. A much more effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at public, private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax credits will remove large numbers of families from the tax roles!
!CITE:
1998-62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!
!CITE:
1998-62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government” (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children’s education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation.
!CITE:
1998-62:8
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet, this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-62:9
Moreover, because we have no practical way of knowing how many Americans will take advantage of the education IRAs, or the other education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative to those who will have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is quite possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation would have increased revenues to the Treasury by $24 million over the next eight years!
!CITE:
1998-62:10
It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment! It is hard to see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646 — helping America’s families!
!CITE:
1998-62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based “experts.”
!CITE:
1998-62:12
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program will move America toward a national curriculum since it creates a federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with federal standards the goal of education. I ask my colleagues how does moving further toward a national curriculum restore parental control of education?
!CITE:
1998-62:13
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.
!CITE:
1998-62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.
!CITE:
1998-62:15
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.
!CITE:
1998-62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.
!CITE:
1998-62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.
!TITLE:
Drug-Free Workplace Act
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.
!CITE:
1998-63:2
Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1999 thus further shifting the cost burden from the irresponsible drug user to the taxpayer. Allowing the cost of drug use to fall on the irresponsible drug user rather than allowing that user to socialize his or her costs upon the innocent taxpayer would be a worthwhile step in the right direction. The dangerous socialization of costs is a consequence of various Federal actions.
!CITE:
1998-63:3
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading — in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing — increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.
!CITE:
1998-63:4
If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same flawed policy. That is, because government “must” pay the health costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes, government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket.
!CITE:
1998-63:5
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.
!CITE:
1998-63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.
!CITE:
1998-63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been a lot of discussion on the House floor dealing with campaign finance reform.
!CITE:
1998-64:2
I have spoken out on this issue, and once again I want to make some comments about how I see this problem and what we might do about it. Also I want to mention an amendment that I will be bringing up.
!CITE:
1998-64:3
I suspect we will be talking about campaign finance reform for a couple more months. I see this somewhat differently than others. Others see that all we have to do is regulate the money and we are going to solve all our problems. But all governments are prone to be influenced by special interests. That is the nature of government.
!CITE:
1998-64:4
So the smaller government that you have, the less influence you have and the less effort there is made to influence the government. But when you have a big government, there will be a lot of people and a lot of groups that will want to influence government, and that is where I see the problem.
!CITE:
1998-64:5
Twenty-five years ago in the 1970s, after Watergate, the Congress wrote a lot of rules and regulations. Hundreds of candidates have filled out forms and have done all kinds of things that have been very complicated but have achieved very little. The problem is every bit as bad as it was before, and most people admit that.
!CITE:
1998-64:6
I think there is a good reason for that. They were addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. And the cause is, of course, that big government is involved in every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our economic lives, and also around the world, influencing almost every government in the world. So not only is there an incentive for business people to come here to influence our government, but there are labor groups that come to influence our government. We have international groups and other governments coming to influence us. And until that is settled, we can rest assured that we will continue to have these problems.
!CITE:
1998-64:7
But there is another problem that I want to address, and that is the decreased interest in campaigns and elections. Thirty years ago we would have 30 some percent of the people would turn out in the primary elections. Today it is less than 20 percent. It is a steady decline. There is good reason for this because as government gets bigger and as money becomes more influential, and money talks, the little people who have their desires and their voices unheard and want to be heard, they feel very frustrated. So it is understandable and expected that there will be lower and lower turnout in our elections. That is exactly what is happening.
!CITE:
1998-64:8
Now, why is this the case? Is it just because they are apathetic? I do not think so. I think a lot of people make wise choices and say it does not make a lot of difference; my vote does not really count because so much money is influencing what happens in Washington with legislation. And yet we have rules and laws throughout the country that make it just about impossible for anybody outside the ordinary two-party system to be represented.
!CITE:
1998-64:9
Twenty percent of the people do not bother registering because of the frustration, 20 percent of the people who do register, register as Independents. So that leaves about 60 percent of the vote split between Republicans and Democrats, each getting 30 percent. They are a minority. The people who are really shortchanged are the majority, that 40 percent who feel unrepresented and very frustrated about the situation.
!CITE:
1998-64:10
How does this come about? It just happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to control every legislative body in the country, every State legislative body. And, therefore, they write rules and regulations and have high fees for people getting on ballots, and you do not have any competition. And there is lack of interest, and there is a lot of frustration.
!CITE:
1998-64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.
!CITE:
1998-64:12
I would like to quote from Richard Winger, who writes a letter called the Ballot Access News. He cites one of the worst examples. He says Florida now requires 242,000 valid signatures to get a minor party or Independent candidate on the ballot of any State-wide office other than President. Only one signature is permitted on each petition sheet. He goes on. And the payment that is required is $8,250.
!CITE:
1998-64:13
This is what needs to be changed. I have an amendment to the bill that will change this. I hope all my colleagues will pay attention to it.
!TITLE:
Every Currency Crumbles
!DATE:
24 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that James Grant has made a public warning regarding monetary crises. In an Op-Ed entitled “Every Currency Crumbles” in The New York Times on Friday, June 19, 1998, he explains that monetary crises are as old as money. Some monetary systems outlive others: the Byzantine empire minted the bezant, the standard gold coin, for 800 years with the same weight and fineness. By contrast, the Japanese yen, he points out, is considered significantly weak at 140 against the U.S. dollar now to warrant intervention in the foreign exchange markets but was 360 as recently as 1971. The fiat U.S. dollar is not immune to the same fate as other paper currencies. As Mr. Grant points out, “The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.”
!CITE:
1998-65:2
Mr. James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, a financial publication, and editorial director of Grant’s Municipal Bond Observer and Grant’s Asia Observer. He has also authored several books including the biographical “Bernard Baruch: Adventures of a Wall Street Legend”, the best financial book of the year according to The Financial Times “Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken”, “Minding Mr. Market: Ten Years on Wall Street with Grant’s Interest Rate Observer” and “The Trouble with Prosperity: The Loss of Fear, the Rise of Speculation, and the Risk to American Savings”. He is a frequent guest on news and financial programs, and his articles appear in a variety of publications.
!CITE:
1998-65:3
[From the New York Times, June 19, 1998]
EVERY CURRENCY CRUMBLES
(By James Grant)

Currencies, being made of paper, are highly flammable, and governments are forever trying to put out the fires. Thus a half decade before the bonfire of the baht, the rupiah and the yen, there was the conflagration of the markka, the lira and the pound. The dollar, today’s global standard of value, was smoldering ominously as recently as 1992.
!CITE:
1998-65:4
Monetary crises are almost as old as money. What is different today is the size of these episodes. It isn’t every monetary era that features recurrent seismic shifts in the exchange values of so-called major currencies. On Wednesday morning, after coordinated American and Japanese intervention, the weakling yen became 5 percent less weak in a matter of hours.
!CITE:
1998-65:5
People with even a little bit of money ought to be asking what it’s made of. J.S.G. Boggs, an American artist, has made an important contribution to monetary theory with his lifelike paintings of dollar bills. So authentic do these works appear — at least at first glance, before Mr. Boggs’ own signature ornamentation becomes apparent — that the Secret Service has investigated him for counterfeiting. “All money is art,” Mr. Boggs has responded.
!CITE:
1998-65:6
Currency management is a political art. The intrinsic value of a unit of currency is the cost of the paper and printing. The stated value of a unit of currency derives from the confidence of the holder in the promises of the issuing government.
!CITE:
1998-65:7
It cannot undergird confidence that the monetary fires are becoming six- and seven-alarmers. Writing in 1993 about the crisis of the European Rate Mechanism (in which George Soros bested the Bank of England by correcting anticipating a devaluation of the pound), a central bankers’ organization commented: “Despite its geographical confinement to Europe, it is probably no exaggeration to say that the period from late 1991 to early 1993 witnessed the most severe and widespread foreign exchange market crisis since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System 20 years ago.” But the European crisis has been handily eclipsed by the Asian one.
!CITE:
1998-65:8
Monetary systems have broken down every generation or so for the past century. The true-blue international gold standard didn’t survive World War I. Its successor, a half-strength gold standard, didn’t survive the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods regime — in which the dollar was convertible into gold and the other, lesser currencies were convertible into the dollar — didn’t survive the inflationary period of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
!CITE:
1998-65:9
Today, the unnamed successor to Bretton Woods is showing its years. The present-day system is also dollar-based, but it differs from Bretton Woods in that the dollar is no longer anchored to anything. It is defined as 100 cents and only as 100 cents. Its value is derived not from a specified weight of gold, as it was up until Aug. 15, 1971, but from the confidence of the market.
!CITE:
1998-65:10
For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands.
!CITE:
1998-65:11
However, as Madison Avenue knows as well as Wall Street, brand loyalties are fickle. In the early 1890’s, the United States Treasury was obliged to seek a bailout from the Morgan bank. During the great inflation of the 1970’s, Italian hotel clerks, offered payments in dollars, rolled their eyes. The yen, today reckoned dangerously weak at 140 or so to the dollar, was 360 as recently as 1971. The tendency of the purchasing power of every paper currency down through the ages is to regress. Is there any good reason that the dollar, universally esteemed today, should be different?
!CITE:
1998-65:12
None. Certainly, the deterioration of the American balance-of-payments position doesn’t bode well for the dollar’s long-term exchange rate. Consuming more than it produces, the United States must finance the shortfall. And it is privileged to be able to pay its overseas bills with dollars, the currency that it alone can legally produce. Thailand would be a richer country today if the world would accept baht, and nothing but baht, in exchange for goods and services. It won’t, of course. America and the dollar are uniquely blessed.
!CITE:
1998-65:13
Or were. France and Germany have led the movement to create a pan-European currency, one that would compete with the dollar as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. The euro, as the new monetary brand is called, constitutes the first serious competitive threat to the dollar since the glory days of the pound sterling.
!CITE:
1998-65:14
In a world without a fixed standard of value, a currency is strong or weak only in relation to other currencies. The dollar’s “strength,” therefore, is a mirror image of — for example — the yen’s “weakness.” It is not necessarily a reflection of the excellence of the American economy.
!CITE:
1998-65:15
And no degree of excellence can forestall a new monetary crisis indefinitely. Some monetary systems are better than others, and some last longer than others, but each and every one comes a cropper. The bezant, the standard gold coin of the Byzantine empire, was minted for 800 years at the same weight and fineness. The gold may still be in existence (in fact — no small recommendation for gold bullion — it probably is), but the empire has fallen.
!CITE:
1998-65:16
After the 1994 crisis involving the Mexican peso, the world’s financial establishment vowed to stave off a recurrence. Even as the experts delivered their speeches, however, Asian banks were overlending and Asian businesses were overborrowing; the credit-cum-currency eruption followed in short order. Naturally, officials and editorialists are now calling for even better fire prevention systems.
!CITE:
1998-65:17
But “stability,” the goal so sought after, is ever unattainable. The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
!TITLE:
Internet Tax Freedom Act
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: “A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.” The bill’s name, “Tax Freedom,” also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington — the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated “when someone in government mentions the word ‘fairness’, grab your wallet and run for the hills.”
!CITE:
1998-66:2
I am, nevertheless, always suspicious when a recently-crafted bill comes to the House floor not only having bypassed the Committee process but without any advance warning. Such was the case with this bill. Moreover, this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules which does not allow for amendments and which limits the debate time to twenty minutes on each side. I, in fact, was denied an opportunity to speak by those managing the limited time allowable under this process.
!CITE:
1998-66:3
However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state’s right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the “proper” form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by “grandfathering” their taxes while excluding other States’ rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity.
!CITE:
1998-66:4
If the intended purpose of the legislation was simply to keep the internet tax free, a three paragraph bill would have been adequate to accomplish this. Instead, H.R. 4105 is significantly more complex. It, in fact, creates a new 30-member federal commission tasked with, among other things:
!CITE:
1998-66:5
Examining model State legislation relating to taxation of transactions using the Internet and Internet access, including uniform terminology, definitions of the transactions, services, and other activities that may be subject to State and local taxation, procedural structures and mechanisms applicable to such taxation, and a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between States regarding matters involving multiple taxation;
!CITE:
1998-66:6
Examining a simplified system for administration and collection of sales and use tax for remote commerce, that incorporates all manner of making consumer payments, that would provide for a single statewide sales or use tax rate (which rate may be zero), and would establish a method of distributing to political subdivisions within each State their proportionate share of such taxes, including an examination of collection of sales or use tax by small volume remote sellers only in the State of origin;
!CITE:
1998-66:7
Examining ways to simplify the interstate administration of sales and use tax on remote commerce, including a review of the need for a single or uniform tax registration, single or uniform tax returns, simplified remittance requirements, and simplified administrative procedures; and
!CITE:
1998-66:8
Examining the need for an independent third party collection system that would utilize the Internet to further simplify sales and use tax administration and collection;
!CITE:
1998-66:9
These H.R. 4105-established “duties” suggest that the Commission’s real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of “Tax Freedom” as the bill’s name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet.
!TITLE:
Issue Ads
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
!CITE:
1998-67:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE) for offering it.
!CITE:
1998-67:3
Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order to protect this right.
!CITE:
1998-67:4
There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people’s money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.
!CITE:
1998-67:5
So I think it is a very important amendment and we should pay close attention to this to make sure that we pass this amendment. The problem with attacking big money without knowing why there is big money involved in politics I think is the problem that we face. Big money is a problem. They are spending $100 million a month to lobby us in the Congress and hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign, but nobody ever talks about why they are doing it.
!CITE:
1998-67:6
There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved.
!CITE:
1998-67:7
But what is wrong with people spending their own money to come here and fight for their freedom? What if they are a right-to-life group? What if they are a pro-gun-ownership group? What if they are a pro-property-ownership group? Why should they not be able to come and spend the money like the others have?
!CITE:
1998-67:8
It just seems like they have been able to become more effective here in the last few years, and it seems like now we have to clamp down on them because they have an effective way to come here and fight for some of their freedoms back again.
!CITE:
1998-67:9
So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems.
!CITE:
1998-67:10
So I think openness and reporting requirements to let people know where we are getting the money, let the people decide if we are taking too much from one group. But to come down hard and attack on individual liberty and the right for people to spend their money and the right for the people to distribute voters guides, I cannot say see how that is going to solve any problems. I mean, what are we doing here? I think it is total foolishness.
!CITE:
1998-67:11
So I strongly endorse this amendment, and let us hope we can pass this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
!CITE:
1998-67:12
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Campbell
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-68:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. DeLay
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-69:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Doolittle
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-70:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Campbell
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-71:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Doolittle
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-72:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE).
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Ganske
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-73:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. DeLay
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY).
!TITLE:
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing an establishment of Federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses.
!CITE:
1998-75:2
This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
!CITE:
1998-75:3
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver’s license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy–Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver’s license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment.
!CITE:
1998-75:4
My fellow colleagues, make no doubt about this, this is a national I.D. card. We do not need it. Please join me in an effort to stop it.
!TITLE:
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
!CITE:
1998-76:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendment rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
!CITE:
1998-76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.
!CITE:
1998-76:4
The establishment of a national standard for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is forced to conform their birth certificates or drivers’ licenses to federal standards, it is unlikely they will not comply when failure to conform to federal specifications means none of that state’s residents may get a job, receive Social Security, or even leave the state by plane? Thus, rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing states into complying with federal dictates.
!CITE:
1998-76:5
Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
!CITE:
1998-76:6
I ask my colleagues what would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to America would soon have the power to demand that all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID?
!CITE:
1998-76:7
If the disapproval of the Founders is not sufficient to cause my colleagues to support this legislation, then perhaps they should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people.
!CITE:
1998-76:8
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I thank Congressman BARR for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
!TITLE:
Child Custody Protection Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-77:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
!CITE:
1998-77:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, because it is seriously flawed. Although well motivated, the problem we are dealing with is the breakdown of the American family, respect for life and abortion, not too much freedom to travel between States.
!CITE:
1998-77:3
Having delivered nearly 4,000 babies in my three decades of medical practice and having seen the destructiveness of abortion, I strongly agree that legalized abortion is the most egregious of all current social policies. It clearly symbolizes the moral decline America has experienced in the last 30 years.
!CITE:
1998-77:4
However, Federal law restricting interstate travel, no matter how well intended, will serve no useful purpose, will not prevent abortions, and, indeed, will have many unintended consequences.
!CITE:
1998-77:5
It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into effect at approximately the same time that the Department of Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be transporting a teenager.
!CITE:
1998-77:6
There is already a legal vehicle for dealing with this problem. Many States currently prohibit adults from taking underage teenagers across State lines for the purpose of marriage. States have reciprocal agreements respecting this approach. This is the proper way to handle this problem.
!CITE:
1998-77:7
Most importantly, this bill fails to directly address the cause of the problem we face regarding abortion, which is the absurdity of our laws permitting the killing of an infant 1 minute before birth, or even during birth, and a doctor getting paid for it, while calling this same action murder 1 minute after birth.
!CITE:
1998-77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.
!CITE:
1998-77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
!CITE:
1998-77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
!CITE:
1998-77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-77:12
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1998-77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
!CITE:
1998-77:14
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to a point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
!CITE:
1998-77:15
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 3682.
!TITLE:
National Right To Work Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place!
!CITE:
1998-78:2
Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress, only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states’ rights.
!CITE:
1998-78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.
!CITE:
1998-78:4
No wonder the overwhelming majority of the American people support the National Right to Work Act, as shown both by polling results and by the many postcards and petitions my office has received asking for Congressional action on this bill.
!CITE:
1998-78:5
I once again thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this bill.
!TITLE:
Exchange Stabilization Fund
!DATE:
16 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
!CITE:
1998-79:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it. It is detrimental to the people.
!CITE:
1998-79:3
The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest, just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight. The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions, probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.
!CITE:
1998-79:4
Where did the money come from? It came from confiscation, not through taxation, but confiscating gold from the American people, revaluing the gold, taking the net profits, putting it into the Exchange Stabilization Fund, as well as the initial financing of the IMF.
!CITE:
1998-79:5
They tried to reassure us and say, well, this is not an injury to our appropriations process. We do not appropriate money. We do not lose money. Well, that is precisely the problem. We are supposed to have responsibility. It is not the kind of amendment I want.
!CITE:
1998-79:6
We should be talking about this in terms of a free society. Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the expense of the American taxpayers?
!CITE:
1998-79:7
This amendment, if we want to give a lot of foreign aid away, this does not preclude it, it just slows us up a little bit and makes us think about it.
!CITE:
1998-79:8
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.
!CITE:
1998-79:9
This is why we need more openness. Because, ultimately, this is a threat to the dollar. The dollar, when it is devalued, it hurts the American taxpayer. It is a hidden tax. When we devalue the dollar, we are spending money indirectly. We take away wealth and purchasing power from the American people. And it is a sinister tax. It is the most sinister of all taxes.
!CITE:
1998-79:10
That is why the Exchange Stabilization Fund should either be abolished or put on the appropriations process. If we cannot do that or will not do that, we have to at least pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and say, yes.
!CITE:
1998-79:11
If we are going to give away $250 million per country for propping up a foreign currency or foreign country or propping up some banks that made loans overseas or propping up our competitors to our own industries, we have to at least know about it.
!CITE:
1998-79:12
I do not think this is much of an amendment. The fact that the President threatens to veto this bill just because we are acting responsibly, this is just a small step in the right direction. I see no reason why we cannot pass this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-79:13
We talk a lot about supporting the currency. On a day-to-day basis, $1.6 trillion are transferred over the wire service. There is not one reputable economist in this country that I know of that really defends currency intervention as being productive and being able to change the course of events. Because although $38 billion is a lot of money and intervention does cause sudden shocks, causes some bond traders, currency traders to lose money quickly, it has no long-term effect.
!CITE:
1998-79:14
So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists. There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.
!CITE:
1998-79:15
If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be responsible for our acts.
!TITLE:
Matagorda Police 100 Club
!DATE:
17 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, when we go on the August break I will attend a number of events back in my district and one which I will be very proud to attend will be the Matagorda County 100 Club Awards banquet. This group provides assistance to the families of law enforcement personnel who are slain on the job.
!CITE:
1998-80:2
I can think of no better example of how people can freely work together to provide assistance to those who are in need, and who are most deserving of the help of their neighbors. Officers slain in duty give their lives to protect the liberties of the citizens. Our Nation has a strong tradition of local law enforcement, a tradition which would fail without the courage and willingness of men and women to put their lives on the line by working as state and local law enforcement agents.
!CITE:
1998-80:3
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the 100 Clubs and the brave men and women who serve as local law enforcement agents.
!TITLE:
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
!DATE:
20 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject H.R. 3874, a bill reauthorizing the Women’s, Infant, and Children’s (WIC) program and other childhood nutrition programs, and the flawed redistributionist, welfare state model that lies behind this bill. Although the goals of this legislation are noble, the means toward achieving the goals embodied therein are unconstitutional and ineffective.
!CITE:
1998-81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.
!CITE:
1998-81:3
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of my colleagues, understand that private charities are also much better able to target assistance to the truly needy than government programs, which are burdened with bureaucratic rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed to protect the “due process” rights of recipients, which cannot be adequately changed to meet unique individual circumstances. Thus, many people who are genuinely needy do not receive needed help. In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Private charities can also be more effective because they do not have to fulfill administrative requirements, such as the WIC program’s rebate system, which actually divert resources from the needy.
!CITE:
1998-81:4
Private charities are also able to place an emphasis upon reformation of personal behavior while not imposing the controls on personal life that government programs, such as WIC, impose on the program recipients. When a pregnant woman signs up to receive WIC vouchers, she is trading away a large amount of her personal freedom. Her choices of where to shop will be restricted to WIC-approved vendors and her choice of what foods to buy will be restricted to those foods which match the WIC nutrition specifications. WIC recipients are also required to participate in WIC parenting and nutrition classes.
!CITE:
1998-81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!
!CITE:
1998-81:6
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their products included in this program reveals the extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare. Many corporations have made a tidy profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding their competitors in the process. For example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal government is the largest purchaser of infant formula in the nation.
!CITE:
1998-81:7
According to the Congressional Research Service, food vendors participating in WIC received 9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75% of the total funds spent on the WIC program! This fiscal year, producers of food products approved by the federal government for purchase by WIC participants are expected to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars! Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my office to discuss WIC were not advocates for the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons for corporate interests!
!CITE:
1998-81:8
Any of my colleagues who doubt that these programs serve the interests of large corporations should consider that one of the most contentious issues debated at Committee mark-up was opposition to an attempt to allow USDA to purchase non-quote peanuts (currently the only peanuts available for sale are farmers who have a USDA quota all other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US) for school nutrition programs. Although this program would have saved the American taxpayers $5 million this year, the amendment was rejected at the behest of supporters of the peanut lobby. A member of my staff, who appropriately asked why this amendment could not pass with overwhelming support, was informed by a staffer for another member, who enthusiastically supports the welfare state, that the true purpose of this program is to benefit producers of food products, not feed children.
!CITE:
1998-81:9
The main reason supporters of a free and moral society must oppose this bill is because federal welfare programs crowd out the more efficient private charities for two reasons. First, the taxes imposed on the American people in order to finance these programs leave taxpayers with fewer resources to devote to private charity. Secondly, the welfare state erodes the ethic of charitable responsibility as citizens view aiding the poor as the government’s role, rather than a moral obligation of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-81:10
The best way to help the poor is to dramatically cut taxes thus allowing individuals to devote more of their own resources to those charitable causes which better address genuine need. I am a cosponsor of HR 1338, which raises the charitable deduction and I believe Congress should make awakening the charitable impulses of the American people by reducing their tax burden one of its top priorities. In fact, Congress should seriously consider enacting a dollar-per-dollar tax credit for donations to the needy. This would do more to truly help the disadvantaged than a tenfold increase in spending on the programs in HR 3874.
!CITE:
1998-81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.
!TITLE:
The Patient Privacy Act
!DATE:
21 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
!CITE:
1998-82:2
As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
!CITE:
1998-82:3
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
!CITE:
1998-82:4
Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
!CITE:
1998-82:5
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
!CITE:
1998-82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
!CITE:
1998-82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1998-82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
!CITE:
1998-82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
!TITLE:
Patient Protection Act
!DATE:
24 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1998-83:2
I rise in support of the rule. Under the circumstances, the rule is very fair. It offers an opportunity for our side to vote for the Patient Protection Act as well as a vote for the opposition. I think that is quite fair, so I strongly support the rule.
!CITE:
1998-83:3
I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues one particular part of our bill that I think is very important and addresses a problem I see as being very serious.
!CITE:
1998-83:4
In 1996, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill allowed for a national identifier and a national data bank to control all our medical records at a national level. This is very dangerous. In a bill that is called the Patient Protection Act, obviously the best thing we can do is protect patient privacy. If we do not, we interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and this is a disaster.
!CITE:
1998-83:5
This whole concept of a national identifier — the administration is already working to establish this — is dangerous and we must do whatever is possible to stop it.
!CITE:
1998-83:6
I compliment the authors of this bill to prohibit this national medical data bank.
!TITLE:
Patient Protection Act of 1998
!DATE:
24 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I cannot vote for the Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250). However, I would first like to express my support for two of the bill’s provisions, relating to Medical Savings Accounts and relating to the proposed national health ID.
!CITE:
1998-84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”
!CITE:
1998-84:3
While I was not here in 1996 when the medical ID was authorized, it is my understanding that this provision was part of a large bill rushed through Congress without much debate. I am glad that Congress has decided to at least take a second look at this proposal and its ramifications. I am quite confident that, after Congress hears from the millions of Americans who object to a national ID, my colleagues will do the right thing and pass legislation forbidding the federal government from instituting a “uniform standard health identifier.”
!CITE:
1998-84:4
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress is addressing the subject of health care in America, for the American health care system does need reform. Too many Americans lack access to quality health care while millions more find their access to medical care blocked by a “gatekeeper,” an employee of an insurance company or a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) who has the authority to overrule the treatment decisions of physicians!
!CITE:
1998-84:5
An an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience, I find it outrageous that any insurance company bureaucrat could presume to stand between a doctor and a patient. However, in order to properly fix the problem, we must understand its roots. The problems with American health care coverage are rooted in the American tax system, which provides incentives for employers to offer first-dollar insurance benefits to their employees, while providing no incentives for individuals to attempt to control their own health care costs. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that those paying the bill would eventually seize control over personal health care choices as a means of controlling costs.
!CITE:
1998-84:6
Because this problem was created by distortions in the health care market that took control of the health care dollar away from the consumer, the best solution to this problem is to put control of the health care dollar back into the hands of the consumer. We also need to rethink the whole idea of first-dollar insurance coverage for every medical expense, no matter how inexpensive. Americans would be more satisfied with the health care system if they could pay for their routine expenses with their own funds, relying on insurance for catastrophic events, such as cancer.
!CITE:
1998-84:7
An excellent way of moving toward a health care system where the consumer is in charge is through Medical Savings Accounts (MSA’s). I enthusiastically endorse those provisions of this bill that expand access to MSA’s. It may be no exaggeration to say that MSA’s are vital to preserving the private practice of medicine.
!CITE:
1998-84:8
MSA’s provide consumers the freedom to find high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. MSA’s allow consumers to benefit when they economize in choosing health care so they will be more likely to make informed health care decisions such as seeking preventive care and, when possible, negotiate with their providers for the lowest possible costs. Most importantly, MSA’s are the best means available to preserve the patient’s right to choose their doctor and the treatment that best meets their needs, free from interference by an insurance company or an HMO.
!CITE:
1998-84:9
Mr. Speaker, all those concerned with empowering patients should endorse H.R. 4250’s provisions lifting all caps on how many Americans may purchase an MSA and repealing federal regulations that discourage Americans from using MSA’s. For example, a provision in the tax code limits the monthly contribution to the MSA to one-twentieth of the MSA’s yearly amount. Thus, MSA holders have a small portion of their yearly contribution accessible to them in the early months of the year. The Patient Protection Act allows individuals to make the full contribution to their MSA at any time of the year, so someone who establishes an MSA in January does not have to worry if they get sick in February.
!CITE:
1998-84:10
This legislation also allows both employers and employees to contribute to an employee’s MSA. It lifts the arbitrary caps on how one can obtain MSA’s and expands the limits on the MSA deductible. Also it provides that possession of an MSA satisfies all mandated benefits laws as long as individuals have the freedom to purchase those benefits with their MSA.
!CITE:
1998-84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.
!CITE:
1998-84:12
Perhaps the biggest danger these regulations pose is ratification of the principle that guaranteeing a patients’ access to physicians is the proper role for the government, thus opening the door for further federal control of the patient-physician relationship. I ask my physician-colleagues who support this regulation, once we have accepted the notion that federal government can ensure patients have access to our services, what defense can we offer when the government places new regulations and conditions on that access?
!CITE:
1998-84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.
!CITE:
1998-84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.
!TITLE:
Offers An Amendment
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 1
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-86:1
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
!CITE:
1998-86:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a perfecting amendment, it is not in the nature of a substitute, and that has been cleared in the Committee on Rules.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk designated it as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!CITE:
1998-86:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, both amendments that I have should be perfecting amendments, and if permissible, I ask unanimous consent that they both be accepted as such.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman is amending the Shays-Meehan amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted by the rules.
!CITE:
1998-86:4
Mr. PAUL. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
!CITE:
1998-86:5
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-86:6
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that deals with equity and fairness, so I would expect essentially no opposition to this.
!CITE:
1998-86:7
It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the ballot.
!CITE:
1998-86:8
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
!CITE:
1998-86:9
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943. There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943, because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment would correct this.
!CITE:
1998-86:10
Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.
!CITE:
1998-86:11
Now, this is very important also because it increases interest and increases turnout. Today, turnout has gone down every year in the last 20 or 30 years, there has been a steady decline in interest. This amendment would increase the interest and increase the turnout.
!CITE:
1998-86:12
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election, where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this, making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be accepted.
!CITE:
1998-86:13
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 2
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-87:2
My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.
!CITE:
1998-87:3
For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics. They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.
!CITE:
1998-87:4
If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial to the process.
!CITE:
1998-87:5
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 3
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-88:2
The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.
!CITE:
1998-88:3
Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures. A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major candidate.
!CITE:
1998-88:4
There is something distinctly unfair about this. This is un-American. We have the authority to do it. This is the precise time to do it. We are dealing with campaign reform, and they are forcing these minor candidates to spend unbelievable amounts of money. They are being excluded. They are 42 percent of the people in this country. They are the majority, when we divide the electorate up. They deserve representation, too.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. SHAYS:

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
!CITE:
1998-88:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
!TITLE:
Offers An Amendment
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 1
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-90:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-90:2
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months, years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot. Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50 ballots, and they are purposely excluded.
!CITE:
1998-90:3
This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers’ money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies for taxpayers’ funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be allowed in the debate.
!CITE:
1998-90:4
I cannot think of anything that could boost the interest in the debates more. Fewer and fewer people are watching debates. There was the lowest turnout, the lowest listening audience to the debates in the last-go around. It was the lowest since we have had these debates on television.
!CITE:
1998-90:5
Forty-two percent of the people turned out and were interested in the debates prior to the election in 1992, and we had a major candidate, Ross Perot. Of course, the only reason he was able to achieve a significant amount of attention was because he happened to be a billionaire. That is not fair. In 1996, they did a poll right before the election to find out who was paying attention. We were getting ready to pick the President of the United States. It dropped to 24 percent.
!CITE:
1998-90:6
If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government, we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment.
!CITE:
1998-90:7
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 2
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is always interesting that when we have an appropriate amendment that seems to catch the attention of the Members, that it is probably not the appropriate time to bring it up, and that we should hold hearings and do it some other day.
!CITE:
1998-91:2
We have been spending months, and I believe both sides of the aisle have been very sincere in their efforts to clarify and to improve our election process. I think this would be a tremendous benefit to the congressional candidates as well, because there would be more interest. People are not even listening to the debates. If they are not even willing to listen to the presidential debates, how can they get interested in Senate races and in House races?
!CITE:
1998-91:3
The rating of the debates in 1996 was the lowest in 36 years. The Vice-Presidential debate, we cannot even get people to listen to the Vice-Presidential debates. It had dropped off 50 percent from 1992. In 1992, there was more interest. It is because we happened to have a billionaire interested, and he was able to stimulate some people in some debates.
!CITE:
1998-91:4
All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority under our laws to do this.
!CITE:
1998-91:5
So I would strongly suggest if Members are fair-minded and think they would like more interest, or if they want to continue the way we are going now, we are going to have less and less people interested. People are really tired of it. The American people do not understand this debate, but they do understand they would like to have somebody speak up for them.
!CITE:
1998-91:6
Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being allowed to appear.
!CITE:
1998-91:7
This does not mean those candidates more on the right would happen to be in the debate, or more on the left. It would open it up. This is fair-minded, it is proper, it is a good place to do it. It is a chance to vote on it, and I ask for support on this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-91:8
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
!TITLE:
Banking Regulations
!DATE:
4 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-93:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
!CITE:
1998-93:2
Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this bill. I do not support legislation casually here, and have thought this through. I voted against this bill the first time it went through, and I was one of a few. But it is a better bill now than it was before.
!CITE:
1998-93:3
I am a supporter of the free market, and I do not believe you can achieve equity by raising taxes and putting more regulations on those who do not have regulations and who do not have taxes.
!CITE:
1998-93:4
For this reason, I argued the case that instead of equity being achieved by taxing credit unions or making it more difficult for them to survive with more regulations, the best thing we should do now is talk about at least the smaller banks that compete with credit unions, to lower their taxes, get rid of their taxes and get rid of the regulation.
!CITE:
1998-93:5
Precisely because we dealt with the CRA function in the Senate is the reason that I can support this bill. CRA does great deal of harm to the very people who claim they want CRA to be in the bill. CRA attacks the small, marginal bank that is operating in communities that have poor people in them. But if you compel them to make loans that are not prudent and to make loans that are risky, you are doing precisely the opposite of what we should do for these companies.
!CITE:
1998-93:6
We should work to lower taxes, not only on the credit unions, and lower regulations. We must do the same thing for the banks. We must lower the taxes and get rid of these regulations in order for the banks to remain solvent and that we do not have to bail the banks out like we have in the past. But the regulations do not achieve this.
!CITE:
1998-93:7
This is a bill that I think really comes around to achieving and taking care of a problem and protecting everybody interested. But I am quite convinced that this is still not a fair bill, a fair approach, because we have not yet done enough for our community bankers. We must eventually apply these same principles of less regulations and less taxes to the small banker. Then we will provide a greater service to the people that are their customers, and we will certainly be allowing the poor people a greater chance to achieve a loan.
!CITE:
1998-93:8
Since I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions and was the first one in this congress to introduce multiple common bonds for credit unions in the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, I am happy to speak in support of the passage of H.R. 1151 here today. Having argued forcefully against the imposition of new regulations imposed upon credit unions, I congratulate the senate for not increasing the regulatory burden on credit unions in an attempt to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions.
!CITE:
1998-93:9
A better approach is to lead the congress toward lower taxes and less regulation — on credit unions, banks and other financial institutions. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the senate, takes us one step in the right direction of less government regulation restricting individual choice. We must continue on the path of fewer regulations and lower taxes.
!CITE:
1998-93:10
These regulations add to the costs of operations of financial institutions. This cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher interest rates and additional fees. These regulations impose a disproportionate burden on smallers institutions, stifles the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector, and contributes to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. Consumers need additional choices, not congressionally-imposed limits on choices.
!CITE:
1998-93:11
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulation can only be larger . . . The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
!CITE:
1998-93:12
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. For each $1 million in asset, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.
!CITE:
1998-93:13
We need to work together now to reduce the regulatory burden on all financial institutions. The IBAA study identified the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. We need to reduce the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks.
!CITE:
1998-93:14
Let’s all work together now, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, to reduce their regulatory burden. Credit unions have demonstrated that fewer regulations contribute to lower costs passed on to consumers and greater consumer choice. Let’s extend that model for banks and other financial institutions.
!TITLE:
Honoring 4-H Programs And Gold Star Recipients
!DATE:
4 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Brazoria County 4–H will hold an awards program on the 14th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-94:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Deidrea Harris, Josh Weber, Amanda Tacquard, and Allison Sauer. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.
!TITLE:
Gold Star Awards
!DATE:
5 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Matagorda County 4-H will hold an awards program on the 20th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I have, in the past, pointed out how important an organization 4-H truly is for those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities. As I have said in the past Mr. Speaker, one of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. I believe that this mission is so critical that, earlier this year, I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4-H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorney we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-95:2
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Kim Evans, Courtney Wallis and Lindsey Kubecka. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.
!TITLE:
English Language Fluency Act
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal Government’s role in education.
!CITE:
1998-96:2
I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people in those communities.
!CITE:
1998-96:3
The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.
!CITE:
1998-96:4
Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control be restored.
!CITE:
1998-96:5
In order to restore parental control of education I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for elementary and secondary education expenses. This bill places parents back in charge and is thus the most effective education reform bill introduced in this Congress.
!CITE:
1998-96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.
!TITLE:
Worldwide Financial Crisis
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the largest of all bubbles is now bursting. This is a worldwide phenomenon starting originally in Japan 9 years ago, spreading to East Asia last year, and now significantly affecting U.S. markets.
!CITE:
1998-97:2
All financial bubbles are currency driven. When central banks generously create credit out of thin air speculation, debt, and malinvestment result. Early on the stimulative effect is welcomed and applauded as the boom part of the cycle progresses. But illusions of wealth brought about by artificial wealth creation end when the predictable correction arrives. Then we see the panic and disappointment as wealth is wiped off the books.
!CITE:
1998-97:3
These events only occur when governments and central banks are given arbitrary authority to create money and credit out of thin air. Paper money systems are notoriously unstable; and the longer they last, the more vulnerable they are to sudden and sharp downturns.
!CITE:
1998-97:4
All countries of the world have participated in this massive inflationary bubble with the dollar leading the way. Being a political and economic powerhouse, U.S. policy and the dollar has had a major influence throughout the world and, in many ways, has been the engine of inflation driving world financial markets for years.
!CITE:
1998-97:5
But economic law dictates that adjustments will be made for all the bad investment decisions based on erroneous information about interest rates, the money supply, and savings.
!CITE:
1998-97:6
The current system eventually promotes overcapacity and debt that cannot be sustained. The result is a slump, a recession, or even a depression. When the government makes an effort to prevent a swift, sharp correction, the agony of liquidation is prolonged and deepened. This is what is happening in Japan and other Asian countries today. We made the same mistake in the 1930s.
!CITE:
1998-97:7
A crisis brought on by monetary inflation cannot be aborted by more monetary inflation or the IMF bailouts favored by the American taxpayer. It may at times delay the inevitable, but eventually, the market will demand liquidation of the malinvestment, excessive debt, and correction of speculative high prices as we have seen in the financial markets.
!CITE:
1998-97:8
All this could have been prevented by a sound monetary system, one without a central bank that has monopoly power over money and credit and pursues central economic planning. My concern is profound. The retirement and savings of millions of Americans are jeopardized. Economic growth could be reversed sharply and quickly as it already has in the Asian countries. Budget numbers will need to be sharply revised.
!CITE:
1998-97:9
The Federal Reserve hints at lower interest rates which means more easy credit. This may be construed as a positive for the market, but it only perpetuates a flawed monetary system.
!CITE:
1998-97:10
Protecting the dollar is our job here in the Congress, and we are not paying much attention. Although turmoil elsewhere in the world has given a recent boost to the dollar, signs are appearing that the dollar, unbacked by anything of real value, is vulnerable. Setting a standard for the dollar with real value behind it can restore trust to the system and will become crucial in solving our problems, soon to become more apparent.
!CITE:
1998-97:11
The sooner we understand the nature of the problem and start serious discussions on how to restore soundness to our money the sooner we can secure the savings, investments, and retirements of all Americans.
!TITLE:
POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 13 I will have the distinct pleasure of being the keynote speaker at the opening ceremonies for POW/MIA Recognition week in Matagorda County, Texas.
!CITE:
1998-98:2
This event will be sponsored by Matagorda County Veterans Services as a part of POW/ MIA Recognition Week. Mr. Speaker, as a United States Air Force veteran I am well aware of the sacrifices which brave young men are required to make during times of war. Perhaps no better example of these sacrifices can be found than those endured by Prisoners of War and those Missing In Action. From “Hanoi Hilton” to “Saving Private Ryan” we have seen the dramatic horrors that war brings, but behind the stories, beyond the silver screen, there are real Private Ryan’s who never do make it home. And there are families broken, lives affected and communities touched, by the real sacrifices of the real heroes who fight America’s wars.
!CITE:
1998-98:3
I believe that no young man or woman has ever entered the military hoping to face combat, but most answer the call because they believe in the liberties which our nation was founded upon, and they see our nation as a beacon of liberty. It is to these young people that I wish to bring honor and it is to those who have become Missing, or are held Prisoner, to whom I believe this nation must pledge ongoing fealty. Specifically, I would like to memorialize U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Parks, from Matagorda County, who died while in captivity in Vietnam.
!CITE:
1998-98:4
Mr. Speaker, our nation has suffered a great burden as a result of the wars of this century, in some instances it has nearly been torn apart by these wars, but none have suffered more than those who are missing, and their families, many of whom still hope against hope that they will one day return, either to resume lives or to be granted a proper burial. Our nation still has some 93,000 individuals who are unaccounted for, some of whom are believed to be POW’s even now during a time of relative peace. Mr. Speaker, I believe we owe it to these men, and to their families, to get a full accounting for every person which this nation has sent abroad. I believe we owe it to our nation to bring each and every one of them home.
!CITE:
1998-98:5
With the opening of archives from the former Soviet Union we have seen evidence of how young American servicemen were allowed to become political chess pieces for a totalitarian regime. It is due to the efforts of groups such as Matagorda County Veterans Services that we can honestly say “You Are Not Forgotten” to those who have sacrificed so much. And it is critical that we keep these memories forever etched in our minds so that we might also recall the mantra “never again.” Never again should Americans be forced to face the brutalities of war, such as those faced in Prisoner of War camps, and never again should we allow brave Americans to go missing in action.
!TITLE:
Head Start Program
!DATE:
14 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 2206, which reauthorizes the Head Start program, as well as the Community Services Block Grant program and the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). While the goals of Head Start and the Community Services Block Grant program are certainly noble, the means these programs use to accomplish these goals (confiscating monies from one group of citizens and sending them to another group of citizens in the form of federal funding for Washington-controlled programs) are immoral and ineffective. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to fund any programs concerning child-rearing or education. Under the constitutional system, these matters are left solely in the hands of private citizens, local government, and the individual states.
!CITE:
1998-99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.
!CITE:
1998-99:3
When the federal government becomes involved in funding a program such as Head Start, it should at least respect local autonomy by refraining from interfering with the ability of local communities to fashion a program that suits their needs. After all, federal funding does not change the fact that those who work with a group of children on a daily basis are the best qualified to design a program that effectively serves those children. Therefore, I must strongly object to the provisions in S. 2206 that requires the majority of Head Start classroom teachers to have an Associate or Bachelors degree in early childhood education by 2003. This provision may raise costs and/or cause some good Head Start teachers to lose their positions simply because they lack the credentials a Washington-based “expert” decided they needed to serve as a Head Start instructor.
!CITE:
1998-99:4
Mr. Speaker, if programs such as Head Start where controlled by private charities, their staffers would not have to worry about diverting valuable resources away from their mission to fulfill the whims of Congress.
!CITE:
1998-99:5
I am also disappointed that S. 2206 does not contain the language passed by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce freeing Head Start construction from the wasteful requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon not only drives up construction costs, it effectively ensures that small construction firms, many of which are minority-owned, cannot compete for federal construction contracts. Repealing Davis-Bacon requirement for Head Start construction would open up new opportunities for small construction companies and free up millions of taxpayers dollars that could be used to better America’s children.
!CITE:
1998-99:6
Congress should also reject S. 2206 because it reauthorizes the Low Income Heating and Energy Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is an unconstitutional transfer program which has outlived its usefulness. LIHEAP was instituted in order to help low-income people deal with the high prices resulting from the energy crisis of the late seventies. However, since then, home heating prices have declined by 51.6% residential electricity prices have declined by 25% and residential natural gas prices have declined by 32.7%. Furthermore, the people of Texas are sending approximately $43 million more taxpayer dollars to Washington for LIHEAP than they are receiving in LIHEAP funds. There is no moral or constitutional justification for taking money from Texans, who could use those funds for state and local programs to provide low-income Texans with relief from oppressive heat, to benefit people in other states.
!CITE:
1998-99:7
Another provision in S. 2206 that should be of concern to believers in a free society is the provision making “faith-based organizations” eligible for federal funds under the Community Services Block Grant program. While I have little doubt that the services offered by churches and other religious institutions can be more effective in producing social services than many secular programs, I am concerned that allowing faith-based organizations’ access to federal taxpayer dollars may change those organizations into lobbyists who will compromise their core beliefs rather than risk alienating members of Congress and thus losing their federal funds. Thus, allowing faith-based organizations to receive federal funds may undermine future attempts to reduce federal control over social services, undermine America’s tradition of non-establishment of religion, and weaken the religious and moral component of the programs of “faith-based providers.” It would be a tragedy for America if religious organizations weakened the spiritual aspects that made their service programs effective in order to receive federal lucre.
!CITE:
1998-99:8
Since S. 2206 furthers the federal government’s unconstitutional role of controlling early childhood education by increasing federal micro-management of the Head Start program, furthers government intrusions into religious institutions and redistributes income from Texans to citizens of other states through the LIHEAP program, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead join me in defunding all unconstitutional programs and cutting taxes so the American people may create social service programs that best meet the needs of low-income children and families in their communities.
!TITLE:
The Failed War On Drugs
!DATE:
15 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am a physician, I am a parent and I am a grandparent, and I am convinced that drugs are a very, very serious problem in this country, not only the illegal ones, but the legal ones as well. Just last year, 106,000 people died from the legal use of drugs. We are drug dependent, on the illegal drugs and on the legal tranquilizers. That is a major problem.
!CITE:
1998-100:2
But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea. It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.
!CITE:
1998-100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.
!CITE:
1998-100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.
!CITE:
1998-100:5
I have a program designed, which I cannot present here, that will change our policy and attack the drugs in a much different way.
!TITLE:
Dollars To The Classroom Act
!DATE:
18 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-101:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government’s control over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress should reject this bill.
!CITE:
1998-101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-101:3
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies are spent “in the classroom,” (a term not defined in the act) and report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the Federal Government for their management of educational programs.
!CITE:
1998-101:4
For all its flaws, the original version of H.R. 3248 at least restored some measure of state control of education because it placed no restrictions on a state’s use of funds. It was, thus, a pure block grant. However, this bill does not even give states that level of discretion as H.R. 3248 has been amended to restrict the uses to which a state can apply its block grants.
!CITE:
1998-101:5
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example of “mandate federalism” where states are given flexibility to determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states the authority to select a particular form of federal management of education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!
!CITE:
1998-101:6
The federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!
!CITE:
1998-101:7
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
!CITE:
1998-101:8
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-101:9
Madam Chairman, those who doubt the likelihood of the above scenario should remember that the Education Committee could not even pass the initial block grant without “giving in” to the temptation to limit state autonomy in the use of education funds because “Congress cannot trust the states to do the right thing!” Given that this Congress cannot pass a clean block grant, who can doubt that some future Congress will decide that the States need federal “leadership” to ensure they use their block grants in the correct manner, or that states should be forced to use at least a certain percentage of their block grant funds on a few “vital” programs.
!CITE:
1998-101:10
I would also ask those of my colleagues who claim that block grant will lead to future reductions in expenditures how likely is this will occur when Congress had to increase expenditures in order to originally implement the block grant programs?
!CITE:
1998-101:11
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers’ dollars to spend as they wish.
!CITE:
1998-101:12
It will be claimed that this bill does not increase spending, it merely funds education spending at the current level by adding an adjustment to inflation to the monies appropriated for education programs in Fiscal Year 1999. However, predicting the rate of inflation is a tricky business. If, as is very likely, inflation is less than the amount dictated by this bill, the result will be an increase in education spending in real dollar terms. Still, that is beside the point, any spending increase, whether real or nominal, ought to be opposed. CBO reports that H.R. 3248 provides “additional authorization of “9.5B.”
!CITE:
1998-101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
!CITE:
1998-101:14
Rather than shifting responsibility for the management of federal funds, Congress should defund all unconstitutional programs and dramatically cut taxes imposed upon the American people, thus enabling American families to devote more of their resources to education. I have introduced a bill, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816) to provide parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for education expenses. This bill directly empowers parents, not bureaucrats or state officials, to control education and is the most important education reform idea introduced in this Congress.
!CITE:
1998-101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.
!TITLE:
Revamping The Monetary System
!DATE:
24 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of fellow colleagues to the issue of three things that have happened in the last couple of days.
!CITE:
1998-102:2
Today it was recorded in our newspapers and it was a consequence of a meeting held last night having to do with a company that went bankrupt, Long-Term Capital Management. I believe this has a lot of significance and is something that we in the Congress should not ignore.
!CITE:
1998-102:3
This is a hedge fund. Their capitalization is less than $100 billion, but, through the derivatives markets, they were able to buy and speculate in over $1 trillion worth of securities, part of the financial bubble that I have expressed concern about over the past several months.
!CITE:
1998-102:4
But last night an emergency meeting was called by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was not called by the banks and the security firms that were standing to lose the money, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called an emergency meeting late last night. Some of the members of this meeting, the attendees, came back from Europe just to attend this meeting because it was of such a serious nature. They put together a package of $3.5 billion to bail out this company.
!CITE:
1998-102:5
Yesterday also Greenspan announced that he would lower interest rates. I do not think this was an accident or not coincidental. It was coincidental that at this very same time they were meeting this crisis, Greenspan had to announce that, yes indeed, he would inflate our currency, he would expand the money supply, he would increase the credit, he would lower interest rates. At least that is what the markets interpreted his statement to mean. And the stock market responded favorably by going up 257 points.
!CITE:
1998-102:6
On September 18th, the New York Times, and this is the third time that that has come about in the last several weeks, the New York Times editorialized about why we needed a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the countries involved in this financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-102:7
Yesterday, on the very same day, there was another op-ed piece in the New York Times by Jeffrey Garten, calling again for a worldwide central bank, that is, a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the ailing economies of the world.
!CITE:
1998-102:8
The argument might go, yes, indeed, the financial condition of the world is rather severe and we should do something. But the financial condition of the world is in trouble because we have allowed our Federal Reserve System, in deep secrecy, to create credit out of thin air and contribute to the bubble that exists. Where else could the credit come from for a company like Long-Term Capital Management? Where could they get this credit, other than having it created and encouraged by a monetary system engineered by our own Federal Reserve System?
!CITE:
1998-102:9
We will have to do something about what is happening in the world today, but the danger that I see is that the movement is toward this worldwide Federal Reserve System or worldwide central bank. It is more of the same problem. If we have a fiat monetary system, not only in the United States but throughout the world, which has created the financial bubble, what makes anybody think that creating more credit out of thin air will solve these problems? It will make the problems much worse.
!CITE:
1998-102:10
We need to have a revamping of the monetary system, but certainly it cannot be saved, it cannot be improved, by more paper money out of thin air, and that is what the Federal Reserve System is doing.
!CITE:
1998-102:11
I would like to remind my colleagues that when the Federal Reserve talks about lowering interest rates, like Mr. Greenspan announced yesterday, or alluded to, this means that the Federal Reserve will create new credit. Where do they get new credit and new money? They get it out of thin air. This, of course, will lower interest rates in the short run and this will give a boost to a few people in trouble and it will bail out certain individuals.
!CITE:
1998-102:12
When we create credit to bail out other currencies or other economies, yes, this tends to help. But the burden eventually falls on the American taxpayer, and it will fall on the value of the dollar. Already we have seen some signs that the dollar is not quite as strong as it should be if we are the haven of last resort as foreign capital comes into the United States. The dollar in relationship to the Swiss frank has been down 10 percent in the last two months. In a basket of currencies, 15 currencies by J.P. Morgan, it is down 5 percent in one month.
!CITE:
1998-102:13
So when we go this next step of saying, yes, we must bail out the system by creating new dollars, it means that we are attacking the value of the money. When we do this, we steal the value of the money from the people who already hold dollars.
!CITE:
1998-102:14
If we have an international Federal Reserve System that is permitted to do this without legislation and out of the realms of the legislative bodies around the world, it means that they can steal the value of the strong currencies. So literally an international central bank could undermine the value of the dollar without permission by the U.S. Congress, without an appropriation, but the penalty will fall on the American people by having a devalued dollar.
!CITE:
1998-102:15
This is a very dangerous way to go, but the movement is on. As I mentioned, it has already been written up in the New York Times. George Soros not too long ago, last week, came before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services making the same argument. What does he happen to be? A hedge fund operator, the same business as Long-Term Capital Management, coming to us and saying, “Oh, what you better do is protect the system.”
!CITE:
1998-102:16
Well, I do not think the American people can afford it. We do have a financial bubble, but financial bubbles are caused by the creation of new credit from central banks. Under a sound monetary system you have a commodity standard of money where politicians lose total control. Politicians do not have control and they do not instill trust into the paper money system.
!CITE:
1998-102:17
But we go one step further. The Congress has reneged on its responsibility and has not maintained the responsibility of maintaining value in the dollar. It has turned it over to a very secretive body, the Federal Reserve System, that has no responsibility to the U.S. Congress. So I argue for the case of watching out for the dollar and argue for sound money, and not to allow this to progress any further.
!TITLE:
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
!DATE:
25 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is asked to vote to approve H.R. 2621, a fast-track procedure under which international agreements might be approved as far into the future as October 1, 2005. The “fast track” procedure requires the President to submit draft international agreements, implementing legislation, and a statement of administrative action for congressional approval. Amendments to the legislation in Congress are not permitted once the bill is introduced and committee and floor action votes may consist only of “yes” or “no” votes on any potential agreement as it is introduced.
!CITE:
1998-103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade representative. The bill would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional “executive authority” to negotiate “side agreements” such as those dealing with environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a number of businesses which recently benefitted by a favorable judgment in federal tax court.
!CITE:
1998-103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.
!CITE:
1998-103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.
!CITE:
1998-103:6
Even if the procedure advocated by the bill were able to survive what should always be the Congressman’s initial threshold of constitutionality, the bill contains provisions which will likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by economist Murray N. Rothbard:
!CITE:
1998-103:7
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-103:8
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
!CITE:
1998-103:9
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialist Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
!CITE:
1998-103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.
!CITE:
1998-103:11
Lastly, critics of the bill convincingly argue that language within H.R. 2621 regarding “Foreign Investment” would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. H.R. 2621 attempts to eliminate artificial or trade-distorting barriers to trade-related foreign investment by reducing or eliminating exceptions to the principle of national treatment; free the transfer of funds relating to investments; reduce or eliminate performance requirements and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment and operation of investments; seeks to establish standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice; and provide meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes. It is argued that H.R. 2621 will congressionally activate the nearly completed Multilateral Agreement on Investment which covers 29 countries and forbids countries from regulating investment or capital flows and would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. The MAI requires governments to pay investors for any action that directly or indirectly has an equivalent effect of expropriation. The MAI would be enforceable through international tribunals similar to those of the World Trade Organization without the due process protections of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-103:12
Because H.R. 2621 enacts an unconstitutional foreign policy procedure, furthers our nation down the internationally-managed (rather than free trade) path, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, potentially undermines U.S. sovereignty through MAI, and preserves the President’s executive authority to negotiate “side agreements.” As such, I must oppose the bill.
!TITLE:
World Financial Markets
!DATE:
1 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world financial markets have been in chaos now for nearly a year and a half. The problem surrounding long-term capital investment is only one more item to add to the list. The entire process represents the unwinding of speculative investments encouraged by years of easy credit. By the way, Long Term Credit Management is not even an American corporation. It is registered in the Cayman Islands, I am sure for tax purposes.
!CITE:
1998-104:2
The mess we are witnessing in the world today was a predictable event. Artificially low interest rates and easy credit causes malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive borrowing and uncontrolled speculation.
!CITE:
1998-104:3
We have had now for 27 years a world saturated with fiat currencies and not one has had a definable unit of account.
!CITE:
1998-104:4
There have been no restraints on the world monetary managers to expand their money supplies, fix short-term interest rates or deliberately debase their currencies. Although.
!CITE:
1998-104:5
Short-term benefits were enjoyed, it is clear now they were not worth the resulting chaos. We need not look for the cause which puts the dollar, our economy and our financial markets at risk. The previous boom supported by the illusion of wealth coming from money creation is the cause of current world events, and it guarantees further unwinding of the speculative orgy of the past decades.
!CITE:
1998-104:6
This cannot be prevented. All that we can hope for is to not prolong the agony, as our monetary and fiscal policies did in the U.S. in the 1930s and as they are currently doing in Japan and elsewhere in the world.
!CITE:
1998-104:7
More Federal Reserve fixing of interest rates and credit expansion can hardly solve our problems when this has been precisely the cause of the mess in which we currently find ourselves.
!CITE:
1998-104:8
Price fixing of interest rates contradicts the basic tenets of capitalism. Let it no more be said that today’s mess with financial markets is a result of capitalism’s shortcomings. Nothing is further from the truth. Allowing the market to operate even under today’s dangerous conditions is still the best option for dealing with hedge fund’s gambling mistakes, both current and future.
!CITE:
1998-104:9
A Federal Reserve orchestrated and arm-twisting bailout of LTCM associated with less than a coincidentally announced credit expansion only puts long-term pressure on the dollar. All Americans suffer when the dollar is debased. Congress’s responsibility is to the dollar and not foreign currencies, not foreign economies or international hedge funds which get in over their heads.
!CITE:
1998-104:10
No amount of regulation could have prevented or in the future prevent the inevitable mistakes made in an economy that is misled by rigged interest rates or a money supply dictated by central planners in a fiat money system. Hedge fund operations, because they are international in scope, are impossible to regulate and for the current ongoing crisis it is too late anyway.
!CITE:
1998-104:11
Credit conditions that allow a company with less than $1 billion in capital to buy $100 billion worth of stock with borrowed money and manage $1.2 trillion worth of derivatives is about as classic an example as one could ever find of speculative excess brought on by easy credit. As long as capital is thought to come from a computer at the Federal Reserve and not from savings, the financial problems the world faces today will persist.
!CITE:
1998-104:12
Our problems today should not be used to justify a worldwide central bank, as has been proposed. What we need is sound money without the central planning efforts of a Federal Reserve system fixing interest rates and regulating the money supply. Let us give freedom a chance.
!TITLE:
Hedge Fund Bailout
!DATE:
2 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve orchestrated bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP raises serious policy questions. At one point, the notional value of the Cayman Island-registered fund’s derivatives totalled about $1.2 trillion. We should look seriously at this issue because of the taxpayer-backed liability concerns raised by the involvement of an agency with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The state of Michigan has taken a constructive first step regarding the public policy concerns of derivatives. I urge us to consider the wisdom of the State Representative Greg Kaza as we debate this issue.
!CITE:
1998-105:2
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG KAZA, MICHIGAN
STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR
OF FINANCE, WALSH COLLEGE
Derivatives are financial instruments broadly defined as any contract or convertible security that changes in value in concert with a related or underlying security, fixed-income instrument, future or other instrument, currency or index; or that obtains much of its value from price movements in a related or underlying instrument; or an option, swap, warrant, or debt instrument with one or more options embedded in or attached to it, the value of which contract or security is determined in whole or in part by the price of one or more underlying instruments or markets.
!CITE:
1998-105:3
Although derivatives are a relatively recent development in financial markets, their use by corporations, pension and mutual funds, financial institutions, governments and those involved in money management are clearly ascendant, according to the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies. The issue is not whether the government should ban or in some way restrict the prudent use of derivatives to hedge risk. Rather, the issue is one of disclosure, i.e., how best to provide increased transparency as our complex international financial system enters the 21st Century.
!CITE:
1998-105:4
Three years ago I addressed the very same issue in Michigan by authoring state legislation that provided increased transparency by requiring units of government to disclose their derivative holdings to the public. Government units have to make investment decisions regarding the money they receive or retain; unfortunately, investment practices and decisions can sometimes lead to significant losses when taxdollars are unwisely invested in derivatives. Orange County in California and Independence Township in Oakland County, Michigan are both examples of government units that experienced significant losses as a result of the imprudent use of derivatives.
!CITE:
1998-105:5
Initially, some of my colleagues wondered whether a ban or restriction on the use of derivatives would be preferable. But committee testimony soon convinced them that derivatives, although complex, are used by many institutions, including government pension funds, to prudently hedge risk. Our five-bill package required public disclosure of derivative holdings by government units. The legislation garnered bi-partisan sponsorship and support, and ultimately became state law.
!CITE:
1998-105:6
A related issue that we discussed privately at the time was whether the potential for moral hazard created by federal deposit insurance means private financial institutions should be required to disclose their derivative holdings in the interest of transparency. You are now likely to contemplate this issue yourselves given events surrounding the hedge fund in question, Long-Term Capital Management; and the potential for systemic risk posed by any future episode that might involve the imprudent use of derivatives and excessive amounts of leverage.
!TITLE:
Claims Debate Time In Opposition
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether or not either gentleman is opposed to the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Indiana opposed to the bill?

Mr. HAMILTON. I support the bill, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-106:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will control 20 minutes in opposition and the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) will control 20 minutes in support of the bill.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 1
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-107:2
Mr. Speaker, understand this legislation came before the committee on Friday, one legislative day prior to today. There has been no committee report filed, and it was brought up under suspension. And I believe this legislation is very serious legislation. It is not a casual piece of legislation condemning a leader in another country that is doing less than honorable things.
!CITE:
1998-107:3
I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.
!CITE:
1998-107:4
For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.
!CITE:
1998-107:5
So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this President to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-107:6
Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was H.R. 137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn and also to set up a U.N. commission to study this and give the U.N. authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. So this is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations, but we are the spokesperson for them.
!CITE:
1998-107:7
Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.
!CITE:
1998-107:8
So I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the President more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the President to pursue this.
!CITE:
1998-107:9
Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.
!CITE:
1998-107:10
Just today it was announced that the Turks are lined up on the Syrian border. What for? To go in there and kill the Kurds because they do not like the Kurds. I think that is terrible. But what are we doing about it? Who are the Turks? They are our allies, they are our friends. They get military assistance. The American people are paying the Turks to keep their military up. So we are responsible for that.
!CITE:
1998-107:11
This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are under trained and lack equipment, and we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and say why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everybody. We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?
!CITE:
1998-107:12
There are people around the world that we deal with that are equally repulsive to Saddam Hussein, and I believe very sincerely that the founders of this country were on the right track when they said stay out of entangling alliances. And we should trade with people; we would get along with them better. We have pursued this type of policy in Cuba for 40 years, and it has served Castro well. Why do we not go down and get rid of Castro? Where do we get this authority to kill a dictator? We do not have that authority, and to do it under one day of hearings, mark it up, bring it up the next day under suspension; I do not understand why anybody could vote for this just on the nature of it.
!CITE:
1998-107:13
We should not be doing this. We should stop and think about it and try to figure out a much better way.
!CITE:
1998-107:14
I, for instance, am on a bill to trade with Cuba. Oh, how horrible, we should not trade with Cuba, they are a bunch of Commies down there. But we should be selling them rice and we should be selling them our crops. We should not be bombing these people.
!CITE:
1998-107:15
As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint as to why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there is some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money, and I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the west. So he has to go.
!CITE:
1998-107:16
But also at the end of this legislation it tells us something about what might be going on. It is they are asking to set up and check into the funds that Saddam Hussein owes to the west. Who is owed? They do not owe me any money. But I will bet my colleagues there is a lot of banks in New York who are owed a lot of money, and this is one of the goals, to set up and make sure Saddam Hussein pays his bills.
!CITE:
1998-107:17
All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the President this much authority to go to war.
!CITE:
1998-107:18
Under the appropriations it is endless, it is open, endless, and here we are concerned about saving Social Security. Any amount of money spent on this bill comes out of Social Security. Yes, there was yelling and screaming about a tax cut. Oh, it is coming out of Social Security. Well, this money is not appropriated, and it is such sums as necessary for military and economic benefits. After we get rid of one thug, we are going to have it in. I hope we make a better choice than we did with Bin Laden. I mean he was our close ally.
!CITE:
1998-107:19
Please think twice, slow up, vote against this bill. We do not need this.
!CITE:
1998-107:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 2
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MILLER of Florida). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 10 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) has 6 1/2 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON) has 2 minutes remaining.
!CITE:
1998-108:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-108:3
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana makes some very good points indicating that he is not convinced that this is workable. So back to the practicality of the bill. Even though one might argue there is a lot of good intentions here, even a Member that is supporting the bill is very uncertain whether it is workable.
!CITE:
1998-108:4
In some ways, even if it is workable, it is going to be working against us and working against the United States and working against the taxpayers of this country.
!CITE:
1998-108:5
But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
!CITE:
1998-108:6
That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.
!CITE:
1998-108:7
So we are talking about killing Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator. But how many ruthless dictators do we have? We have plenty. So how many more should we go after?
!CITE:
1998-108:8
So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.
!CITE:
1998-108:9
This is more or less what has happened. This is part of a policy that we have been following for quite a few decades. Yet, the problems continue to emerge.
!CITE:
1998-108:10
We can hardly be sympathetic to the Kurds who are being punished by the Iraqis at the same time we are paying the Turks to do the same thing to the Kurds. So there is something awful inconsistent about this.
!CITE:
1998-108:11
There is nothing wrong with a policy of trying to maintain friendship with people, trying to trade with people and influence them that way rather than saying, if you do not do exactly as we tell you, we are going to bomb you.
!CITE:
1998-108:12
This is a policy we have been following for way too long. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of respect for law because, technically, it is not legal. Waging war should only occur when the Congress and the people decide this. But to casually give more and more authority to the President to do this and encourage him to bump off dictators is a dangerous precedent to set.
!CITE:
1998-108:13
I think there is no doubt in my mind what is best for the United States. We should not pass this resolution. If there need to be more efforts made, do it some other way. But, obviously, this is not a good way to do it. It is sacrificing the principle of law. It is sacrificing the Constitution. It is sacrificing the practicalities of even the people who are supporting it are not quite sure it is going to work.
!CITE:
1998-108:14
So I would say give serious consideration to not supporting this bill. We need a “no” vote on this.
!CITE:
1998-108:15
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 3
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-109:2
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California makes a very good point, that sometimes we get involved in these battles and we never fight to complete victory. He argues the case for pursuing it and always winning and take out the dictator that we are opposing.
!CITE:
1998-109:3
There is some merit to that argument, but there is also a very good reason why that does not happen and will not happen. It is because when we fight a war for non-national security reasons, when it is limited to protecting oil or some other interest, then there is a limitation, there is no wanting to expand it.
!CITE:
1998-109:4
When we fight a war for national security reasons, we declare the war, the people join, they are willing to support it financially, they volunteer to go into the military, and they fight to win. But we have not done that since World War II, precisely because we have this namby-pamby foreign policy of being everything to everybody and we do not even defend our national security adequately enough.
!CITE:
1998-109:5
The gentleman from California makes a good point also. He is concerned that somebody like Saddam Hussein may attack us with weapons of mass destruction. He is precisely right. I am concerned about that too. But I would say that our exposure is about 100 times greater because of our policy. Why is it that the terrorists want to go after Americans? Because we are always dropping bombs on people and telling people what to do; because we are the policemen. We pretend to be the arbitrator of every argument in the world, even those that have existed for 1,000 years. It is a failed, flawed policy.
!CITE:
1998-109:6
So I would say I have exactly the same concerns, but I think the policy that we follow has generated this problem, and it will continue.
!CITE:
1998-109:7
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by talking a little bit about this authorization. It says, there are to be authorized appropriations, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation funds. This is what the money is to go for: Defense articles, defense services, military education, and training. Sounds like getting ready for the Bay of Pigs. That is exactly what we did. And then we backed off, we were not doing it for the right reason, and of course we have solidified for 40 years the dictatorship in Cuba.
!CITE:
1998-109:8
So do my colleagues think our policy over the last 10 years has actually helped to weaken Saddam Hussein? Every time he comes out of it stronger. And then those who say, “Well, we should march in,” we should all question. Those of us here in the Congress who are so anxious to take out this dictator, they should be willing to march themselves, or send their children and send their grandchildren. Is it worth that? No, no, we would not want to do that, we have to keep our troops safe, safe from harm, but we will just pay somebody to do it. We will pay somebody to do it and we will make wild promises. Promise the Kurds something. They will take care of Saddam Hussein. And sure enough, the promises never come through.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
!CITE:
1998-109:9
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not think it is proper for us to offer those people who are struggling for freedoms in Iraq against their dictatorship a helping hand?
!CITE:
1998-109:10
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it would be absolutely proper to do that, as long as it came out of the gentleman’s wallet and we did not extract it from somebody in this country, a taxpayer at the point of a gun and say, look, bin Laden is a great guy. I want more of your money.
!CITE:
1998-109:11
That is what we did in the 1980s. That is what the Congress did. They went to the taxpayers, they put a gun to their head, and said, you pay up, because we think bin Laden is a freedom fighter.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if the gentleman will further yield, it was just not handled correctly.
!CITE:
1998-109:12
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, the policy is flawed. The policy is flawed.
!CITE:
1998-109:13
I think the conclusions we have today are logical. I do not think they lack logic. I think that if one decides that we are fighting for our national security reasons, we never stop short of victory. So this would go along with the gentleman’s argument that we stopped too soon in Iraq. But we were not there for national security reasons. They were not about to invade us, and they are not about to invade us. The only way we should fear an invasion by these hoodlums is if we incite them to terrorism.
!CITE:
1998-109:14
We should consider this a very serious piece of legislation. This is a vote for virtual war and giving more power to the President. It has an open-ended appropriation, and if we spend one nickel on it, we are going to take it out of Social Security, the way the budget works around here.
!CITE:
1998-109:15
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Demands Yeas And Nays
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and the Chair’s prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
!TITLE:
Lake Texana
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago, HR 4570 was described as a “delicate balance” not to be disturbed by votes against either the resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented for passage of the bill was the “brilliance” with which a compromise securing the necessary number of votes was “engineered.” Statements such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in the nation’s capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which federal government “favors” are distributed in a means which assures everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority for most of what HR 4570 proposes to do.
!CITE:
1998-111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).
!CITE:
1998-111:3
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation. This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43 million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-111:4
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource. Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
!CITE:
1998-111:5
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons, while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose HR 4570.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Hays County 4-H Annual Dinner, Dance And Auction
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Hays County 4–H will hold their annual dinner, dance and auction on Saturday, October 10, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-112:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-112:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Hays County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Fayette County 4-H Annual Banquet
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-113:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Fayette County 4–H will hold their annual banquet on Sunday, October 11, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-113:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-113:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Fayette County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Award Winners Of The Fayette County 4-H
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to thirteen young men and women from Fayette County who will this weekend be honored by the Fayette County 4–H club in my district.
!CITE:
1998-114:2
Being awarded the Gold Star will be Michelle Cernoch; Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.
!CITE:
1998-114:3
Receiving the Silver Star, Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.
!CITE:
1998-114:4
The “I Dare You” award will go to Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.
!CITE:
1998-114:5
The “Outstanding Junior” Award will be presented to Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.
!CITE:
1998-114:6
And finally, the “Outstanding Sub Junior” award will be presented to Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick and Brandon Otto.
!CITE:
1998-114:7
These fine young people should be commended for their dedication to the fine principles of 4–H. I know I speak for all the constituents of the 14th District when I offer them congratulations and best wishes for continued success.
!TITLE:
National Provider ID
!DATE:
8 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that under the rule my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill is not permitted. This simple amendment forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any funds to implement those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
!CITE:
1998-115:2
My amendment was drafted to ensure that the administration cannot take any steps toward developing or implementing a medical ID. This approach is necessary because if the administration is allowed to work on developing a medical ID it is likely to attempt to implement the ID on at least a “trial” basis. I would remind my colleagues of our experience with national testing. In 1997 Congress forbade the Department of Education from implementing a national test, however it allowed work toward developing national tests. The administration has used this “development loophole” to defy congressional intent by taking steps toward implementation of a national test. It seems clear that only a complete ban forbidding any work on health identifiers will stop all work toward implementation.
!CITE:
1998-115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
!CITE:
1998-115:4
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
!CITE:
1998-115:5
Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
!CITE:
1998-115:6
My amendment forbids the federal government from creating federal IDs for doctors and employers as well as for individuals. Contrary to the claims of some, federal-ID numbers for doctors and employers threaten American liberty every bit as much as individual medical IDs.
!CITE:
1998-115:7
The National Provider ID will force physicians who use technologies such as e-mail in their practices to record all health care transactions with the government. This will allow the government to track and monitor the treatment of all patients under that doctor’s care. Government agents may pull up the medical records of a patient with no more justification than a suspicion the provider is involved in fraudulent activity unrelated to that patient’s care!
!CITE:
1998-115:8
The National Standard Employer Identifier will require employers to record employees’ private health transactions in a database. This will allow coworkers, hackers, government agents and other unscrupulous persons to access the health transactions of every employee in a company simply by typing the company’s identifier into their PC!
!CITE:
1998-115:9
Many of my colleagues admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
!CITE:
1998-115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
!CITE:
1998-115:11
Even the process by which the National Identifier is being developed shows disdain for the rights of the American people. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, which is developing the national identifier, attempted to keep important documents hidden from the public in violation of federal law. In fact, one of the members of the NCVHS panel working on the medical ID chastised his colleagues for developing the medical ID “in an aura of secrecy.”
!CITE:
1998-115:12
Last September, NCVHS proposed guidelines for the development of the medical ID. Those guidelines required that all predecisional documents “should be kept in strict confidence and not be shared or discussed,” This is a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all working documents to be made public. Although NCVHS, succumbing to public pressure and possible legal action against it, recently indicated it will make its pre-decisional documents available in compliance with federal law, I hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee agree that the NCVHS attempt to evade the will of Congress and keep its work secret does not bode well for any future attempts to protect the medical ID from abuse by government officials.
!CITE:
1998-115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1998-115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
!CITE:
1998-115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.
!TITLE:
Congratulating Fayette County 4-H Award Recipients
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to several fine young men and women from my district who have distinguished themselves in the Fayette County 4–H. As my colleagues know, 4–H is one of the finest youth-oriented organizations in our nation, developing character in our future leaders.
!CITE:
1998-116:2
Fayette County 4–H will be recognizing with special awards the following young people on Saturday night, October 9, and I know my colleagues join me in congratulating them and wishing them the best for the future.
!CITE:
1998-116:3
Receiving the Gold Star award are Michelle Cernoch, Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.
!CITE:
1998-116:4
Receiving the Silver Star award are Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.
!CITE:
1998-116:5
Receiving the “I Dare You” award are Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.
!CITE:
1998-116:6
Receiving the “Outstanding Jr.” award are Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.
!CITE:
1998-116:7
And receiving the “Outstanding Sub Jr.” award are Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick, and Brandon Otto.
!TITLE:
New Global Economic Plan
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-117:1
Mr. PAUL. Global leaders are scurrying around to put together, as quickly as possible, a new plan to solve the international financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-117:2
The world economies have been built on generous credit expansion with each country inflating their currencies at different rates. Additionally, each country has had different political, tax, and regulatory policies leading to various degrees of trust and stability. Economies that have “enjoyed” inflationary booms, by their very nature, must undergo a market correction. The market demands deflation of all excesses, while the politicians and special interests agitate for continued credit inflation. Under these circumstances, financial assets may deflate in price but monetary inflation continues and the currency is further depreciated thus putting serious pressure on the dollar; as in the case of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-117:3
Fluctuating fiat currencies, no matter how inefficient as compared to a world commodity monetary standard, function solely because exchange rates are allowed to fluctuate and currency movements across borders are freely permitted as capital seeks the most efficient market. This process provides an indication when host countries need to improve monetary and fiscal policy.
!CITE:
1998-117:4
A gold standard solves capital flow problems automatically and avoids all currency speculation. Gold prevents excesses from developing to any dangerous level.
!CITE:
1998-117:5
Decades ago, the gold standard was abandoned and now our global planners want to take another step to regulate all capital flows throughout the world thus removing the only good indicator left to warn of dangers ahead and the need for sound reform. The rapid transfer of capital around the world is the messenger and not the cause. Killing the messenger will only hide and increase distortions while prolonging the economic pain.
!CITE:
1998-117:6
The proposal of the Group of 22 to regulate capital flows through a new “World Central Bank” prevents any effort to restore efficient market mechanisms and prevents any serious discussion for using gold as the money of choice.
!CITE:
1998-117:7
All money managers in major countries decry currency controls by any individual country yet are now about to embark on a new world-wide approach to regulating all capital flows — a global economic plan to socialize all world credit. But, it won’t work because the plan is deeply and inherently flawed.
!CITE:
1998-117:8
First, the plan demands additional appropriations to transfer wealth from the richer to the poorer nations through increased funding of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Development Bank, and direct foreign aid programs.
!CITE:
1998-117:9
Second, it calls for more credit expansion by the richer nations, more loan guarantees, and export-import bank credits and, indirectly, by providing credit to the Exchange Stabilization Fund and possibly to the Bank International Settlements.
!CITE:
1998-117:10
Third this plan calls for an international government agreement to strictly control capital flows and mandate debt forgiveness in contrast to allowing countries to default. Controlling swift movements of capital is impossible and any attempt only encourages world government through planning by a world fiat monetary system. Any temporary “benefit” can only be achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the world economy, all done with the pretense of preserving financial stability at the expense of national sovereignty and personal liberty.
!CITE:
1998-117:11
Let there be no doubt, the current chaos is being used to promote a new world fiat monetary system while giving political powers to its managers.
!CITE:
1998-117:12
Instead, we should be talking about abandoning the paper money system we have lived with for 27 years. It has, after all, brought us the current world-wide financial mess.
!CITE:
1998-117:13
Free markets and stable money should be our goal, not further institutionalizing of world economic planning and fiat money at the sacrifice of personal liberty. Indeed, we need a serious discussion of the current crisis but so far no one should be encouraged by the direction in which the Group of 22 is going. Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect the dollar, not to sit idly by as it’s being deliberately devalued.
!TITLE:
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4567 even though I support reforming the Interim Payment System (IPS) and I certainly support expanding the health care options available to American veterans. However, I cannot support this bill because this solution to home care is inadequate and it raises taxes on Americans instead of cutting wasteful, unconstitutional spending to offset the bill’s increases in expenditures.
!CITE:
1998-118:2
I am pleased that Congress is at last taking action to address the problems created by the IPS. Unless the IPS is reformed, efficient home care agencies across the country may be forced to close. This would raise Medicare costs, as more seniors would be forced to enter nursing homes or forced to seek care from a limited number of home health care agencies. In fact, those agencies that survive the IPS will have been granted a virtual monopoly over the home care market. Only in Washington could punishing efficient businesses and creating a monopoly be sold as a cost-cutting measure!
!CITE:
1998-118:3
Congress does need to act to ensure that affordable home care remains available to the millions of senior citizens who rely on home care. However, the proposal before us today does not address the concerns of small providers in states such as Texas. Instead, it increases the reimbursement rate of home care agencies in other states. I am also concerned that the reimbursement formula in this bill continues to saddle younger home health agencies with lower rates of reimbursement than similarly situated agencies who have been in operation longer. Any IPS reform worthy of support should place all health care agencies on a level playing field for reimbursements.
!CITE:
1998-118:4
A member of my staff has been informed by a small home health care operator in my district that passage of this bill would allow them only to provide an additional eight visits per year. This will not keep home health patients with complex medical conditions out of nursing homes and hospitals. Congress should implement a real, budget-neutral home health care reform rather than waste our time and the taxpayers’ money with the phony reform before us today.
!CITE:
1998-118:5
Mr. Speaker, I also support the language of the bill expanding the health care options available to veterans’ benefits. Ensuring the nation’s veterans have a quality health care system should be one of the governments’ top priorities. In fact, I am currently working on a plan to improve veterans’ health care by allowing them greater access to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). However, I cannot, in good conscience, support the proposals before us today because, for all their good intentions, it is fatally flawed in implementation for it attempts to offset its new spending with a tax increase.
!CITE:
1998-118:6
Now I know many of the bill’s supporters will claim that this is not a tax increase just an adjustment in the qualifications for a tax benefit or tightening a tax loophole. However, the fact is that by raising the threshold before a taxpayer can rollover their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA the federal government is forcing some people to pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, thus they are raising taxes. It is morally wrong for Congress to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to provide benefits for another group of Americans.
!CITE:
1998-118:7
Instead of raising taxes Congress should “offset” these programs by cutting spending in other areas. In particular, Congress should finance veterans health care by reducing expenditures wasted on global adventurism, such as the Bosnia mission. Congress should stop spending Americans blood and treasure to intervene in quarrels that do not concern the American people.
!CITE:
1998-118:8
Similarly, Congress should seek funds for an increased expenditure on home care by ending federal support for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which benefit wealthy bankers and powerful interests but not the American people. At a time when the federal government continues to grow to historic heights and meddles in every facet of American life I cannot believe that Congress cannot find expenditure cuts to finance the programs in this bill!
!CITE:
1998-118:9
Mr. Speaker, I must also note that the only time this Congress seems concerned with offsets is when we are either cutting taxes or increasing benefits to groups like veterans or senior citizens. The problem is not a lack of funds but a refusal of this Congress to set proper priorities and put the needs of the American people first.
!CITE:
1998-118:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon this Congress to reject this bill and instead support an IPS reform that is fair to all home care providers and does not finance worthwhile changes in Medicare by raising taxes. Instead, Congress should offset the cost to these worthy programs by cutting programs that do not benefit the American people.
!TITLE:
Rights Of The Individual
!DATE:
14 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Michael Kelly, National Journal editor. Mr. Kelly aptly describes how the notion of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-119:2
PUNISHING ‘HATE CRIMES’
(By Michael Kelly)
As one who wholeheartedly supports capital punishment, I have what seems to me a cleareyed vision of what justice demands in the murder of Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old Wyoming college student who was, one night last week, robbed, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence and left to die. Bring in the monsters who did this, try ’em, verdict ’em and string ’em up, preferably before an applauding crowd of thousands.
!CITE:
1998-119:3
And justice does appear on the way to being served. Two young men — Russell A. Henderson and Aaron J. McKinney — have been arrested and charged with first-degree murder; their girlfriends have been charged as accessories. There does not seem to be a lot of doubt that Henderson and McKinney did commit the acts that caused Shepard’s death, nor does it seem at all likely that they will escape punishment.
!CITE:
1998-119:4
But this, it is said, is not enough. Because Shepard was gay, and because his killers appear to have been motivated in part by an anti-gay animus (though police say robbery was the primary motive), justice is said to demand more. Specifically, it demands more bad law.
!CITE:
1998-119:5
“Hate-crime” laws mandate increased penalties for defendants found guilty of committing crimes inspired by certain categories of prejudice. In 21 states and the District of Columbia, the categories are: race, religion, color, national origin and sexual orientation. Nineteen additional states have hate-crime laws that do not cover sexual orientation. Ten states, including Wyoming, have not passed categorical hate-crime laws. There is also a federal law, which covers race, religion, color and national origin but not sex or sexual orientation.
!CITE:
1998-119:6
For Shepard’s sake, the cry arises, Wyoming must pass a hate-crime law, and Congress must pass a new, more sweeping, Federal Hate Crimes Protection Act, which would add to the roster of crimes made federal offenses those inspired by bigotry based on sex, disability and sexual orientation. “There is something we can do about this. Congress needs to pass our tough hate crimes legislation,” President Clinton declared Monday, the day Shepard died of his injuries.
!CITE:
1998-119:7
At least he is consistent. No president has ever been more willing to assault liberty in the pursuit of political happiness than has this one. Clinton is always willing to embrace any new erosion of rights, as long as there is a group of voters or political contributors out there who wish it so. This is one area in which Clinton has been thoroughly bipartisan. In his five years in office, he has joined Republicans in Congress on quite a spree of liberty-bashing. He has signed laws that have stripped habeas corpus to its bones, vastly increased the number of crimes deemed federal offenses, established mindless mandatory sentencing and targeted certain classes of defendants — terrorists, drug pushers — for the special evisceration of rights.
!CITE:
1998-119:8
And playing to the other side of the political spectrum, Clinton has consistently and strongly supported the expansion of harassment and discrimination law, an expansion that has in recent years increasingly worked to criminalize behavior that government once regarded as private. Well, at least he supported such law until the case of Jones v. Clinton arose.
!CITE:
1998-119:9
Of all the violence that has been done in this great expansion of state authority over, and criminalization of, the private behavior and thoughts of citizens, none is more serious than that perpetuated by the hate-crime laws. Here, we are truly in the realm of thought crimes. Hate-crime laws require the state to treat one physical assault differently from the way it would treat another — solely because the state has decided that one motive for assaulting a person is more heinous than another.
!CITE:
1998-119:10
What Henderson and McKinney allegedly did was a terrible, evil thing. But would it have been less terrible if Shepard had not been gay? If Henderson and McKinney beat Shepard to death because they hated him personally, not as a member of a group, should the law treat them more lightly? Yes, say hate-crime laws.
!CITE:
1998-119:11
In 1996 the FBI recorded 1,281 “crimes against persons” for reasons of sexual-orientation bias. Two of these were murders and 222 were aggravated assaults. Four hundred and seventy-two of what the government termed hate crimes were not assaults but “acts of intimidation.” These latter would not be crimes except for the determination that expressions of certain prejudices and hatreds were in themselves criminal offenses.
!CITE:
1998-119:12
There is a long history of police and prosecutors slighting assaults against gays and lesbians. Justice demands that the cops and the courts treat the perpetrators of assaults against citizens who happen to be homosexual as harshly as they do the perpetrators of assaults against anyone else. But not more so.
!TITLE:
Monetary Policy
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a world-wide financial crisis is now upon us.
!CITE:
1998-120:2
For 2 years, I have called attention to this predictable event hoping the Congress would deal with it in a serious manner.
!CITE:
1998-120:3
Although many countries are now suffering more than the United States, in time, I am sure our problems will become much greater
!CITE:
1998-120:4
A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twenty-seven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in its turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970’s.
!CITE:
1998-120:5
Now, after another 27 years, we are seeing the end of the post-Bretton Woods floating rate system with another bang as the financial asset inflation of the 1980’s and 1990’s collapses. A new system is now required.
!CITE:
1998-120:6
Just as the Bretton Woods system was never repaired due to its flaws, so too will it be impossible to rebuild the floating rate system of the past 27 years. The sooner we admit to its total failure, and start planning for sound money, the better.
!CITE:
1998-120:7
We must understand the serious flaw in the current system that is playing havoc with world markets. When license is given to central banks to inflate (debase) a currency, they eventually do so. Politicians love the central bank’s role as lender of last resort and their power to monetize the steady stream of public debt generated by the largesse that guarantees the politician’s reelection.
!CITE:
1998-120:8
The constitutional or credit restraint of a commodity standard of money offers stability and non-inflationary growth but does not accommodate the special interests that demand benefits bigger and faster than normal markets permit. The only problem is the financial havoc that results when the unsound system is forced into a major correction which are inherent to all fiat systems.
!CITE:
1998-120:9
That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood. Attempts at credit stimulation with interest rates below 1 percent is doing nothing for Japan’s economy and for good reasons. it is the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis.
!CITE:
1998-120:10
If the problem were merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the luck few, benefits are received when government inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.
!CITE:
1998-120:11
But in time — and that time is now — it comes to an end. Even the beneficiaries suffer the inevitable consequences of a philosophy that teaches wealth comes from money creation and that central banks are acceptable central economic planners — even in countries such as the United States where many pay lip service to free markets and free trade.
!CITE:
1998-120:12
The tragedy in the end is far more damaging to the innocent than any benefit that was supposed to be delivered to the people as a whole. There is no justifiable trade-off. The costs far exceed the benefits. In addition, the economic chaos leads too frequently to a loss of personal liberty.
!CITE:
1998-120:13
A program to prevent this from happening is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-120:14
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.
!CITE:
1998-120:15
Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins.
!CITE:
1998-120:16
Third, we must abandon the tradition of bailing out bad debtors, foreign and domestic. No International Monetary Fund and related institution funding to prop up bankrupt countries, and no Federal Reserve-orchestrated bailouts such as Long Term Capital Management LP. Liquidation of bad debt and investments must be permitted.
!CITE:
1998-120:17
Fourth, policy elsewhere must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed.
!CITE:
1998-120:18
Following a policy of this sort could quickly restore growth and stability to any filing economy and soften the blow for all those about to experience the connections that have been put in place by previous years of mischief, mismanagement and monetary inflation.
!CITE:
1998-120:19
Short of a free market, sound money approach will guarantee a sustained attack on personal liberty as governments grow more authoritarian and militaristic.
!TITLE:
Education Debate
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education debate that has consumed much of this Congress in recent days. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the difference between the congressional leadership and the administration are not that significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposals to further nationalize education.
!CITE:
1998-121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
!CITE:
1998-121:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.
!CITE:
1998-121:4
This bill is the largest tax credit for education in the history of our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.
!CITE:
1998-121:5
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the Federal Government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of Federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.
!CITE:
1998-121:6
Of course I applaud all efforts which move in this direction. the Gingrich/Coverdell education tax cut, The Granger/Dunn bill, and, yes, President Clinton’s college tax credits are good first steps in the direction I advocate. However, Congress must act boldly, we can ill afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs, creating new Federal education programs (such as those contained in the Reading Excellence Act and the four new Federal programs created by the Higher Education Act), and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block grants.
!CITE:
1998-121:7
One area where this Congress was successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing and thank Mr. GOODLING for his leadership in this struggle. However, I wish this provision did no come at the price of $1.1 billion in new Federal spending. In addition, I note that this Congress is taking several steps toward creating a national curriculum, particularly through the Reading Excellence Act, which dictates teaching methodologies to every classroom in the Nation and creates a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with Federal standards the goal of education.
!CITE:
1998-121:8
So, even when Congress resists one proposal to further nationalize education, it supports another form of nationalization. Some Members will claim they are resisting nationalization and even standing up for the 10th amendment by fighting to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on block grants. These Members say that the expenditure levels do not matter, it is the way the money that is spent which is important. Contrary to the view of these well-meaning but misguided members, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on Federal education programs do matter.
!CITE:
1998-121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-121:10
Furthermore, the Federal Government’s power to treat State governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a State’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates in exchange for Federal funding!
!CITE:
1998-121:11
As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.
!CITE:
1998-121:12
Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
!CITE:
1998-121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.
!CITE:
1998-121:15
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’ failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy road we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.
!TITLE:
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Richard Sincere, Jr., President of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. Mr. Sincere aptly describes how the very essence of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-122:2
[From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14, 1998]
GAY STUDENT’S MURDER IS NO REASON TO
MAKE BAD LAW
(By Richard E. Sincere, Jr.)
The wicked murder of Matthew Shepard by two thugs, assisted by two equally contemptible accomplices, has resurrected a debate about the need for hate-crime laws.
!CITE:
1998-122:3
Shepard, an openly gay University of Wyoming student who had been widely praised for his talents, ambitions and personality, last week was beaten senseless and left for dead, tied up like a scarecrow along a fence on a little-traveled country road. Miraculously, he was found by passers-by many hours after the attack, still struggling for life when he was rushed to a hospital in Fort Collins, CO, where he died Monday while on life support.
!CITE:
1998-122:4
Local law enforcement officials in Laramie, WY, where the crime took place, quickly arrested the alleged perpetrators — two men who performed the assault and two women who helped them hide their deed — and it looks like they will be punished to the full extent the law allows if they are convicted. With Shepard’s death, they face a possible death sentence.
!CITE:
1998-122:5
Laramie, a university community of 27,000 people, is feeling both shame and outrage, a sentiment shared by all right-minded people throughout the country, indeed around the world. News of this brutal assault has appeared everywhere in print and broadcast media.
!CITE:
1998-122:6
The crime against Shepard has renewed calls for passing hate-crime legislation, both in Wyoming and nationwide. Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer and President Bill Clinton have said that this attack shows the need for such laws.
!CITE:
1998-122:7
This would be a mistake. It would be a mistake because hate-crime laws, however well intentioned, are feel-good laws whose primary result is thought control, violating our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of conscience. It would be a mistake because it suggests that crimes against some people are worse than crimes against others. And it would be a mistake because it uses a personal tragedy, deeply felt by Shepard’s family and friends, to advance a political agenda.
!CITE:
1998-122:8
Hunter College Professor Wayne Dynes, editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, notes that hate-crime laws, if they are to be applied in a constitutional manner, must be content-neutral. He notes this example: “Countless numbers of people, aware of the unspeakable atrocities under his leadership, hated Pol Pot. This hate was surely well warranted. If one of the Pol Pot haters had killed him, would this be a hate crime? Why not?”
!CITE:
1998-122:9
Dynes adds: “In seeking to exculpate the killer, we would get into the question of whether some hate is ‘justified’ and some is not.” He concludes that hate-crime prosecutions “will be used to sanction certain belief systems — systems which the enforcer would like, in some Orwellian fashion, to make unthinkable. This is not a proper use of law.”
!CITE:
1998-122:10
Under our system of justice, everyone is equal before the law. Those accused of crimes are entitled to certain constitutional protection, which we must cherish, and the victims of a crime — whether a Bill Gates or the poorest street-sweeper in a slum — are entitled to the same respect. (In the Middle Ages, the law required a greater punishment for killing a rich man or noble than it did for killing a peasant or a laborer. Our law recognizes no such distinctions.)
!CITE:
1998-122:11
So, too, with class- or group-based distinctions. Is it worse to kill a man because he is foreign-born than it is to kill him to steal his car? Is it worse to kill a woman because she is black than because she cut you off in traffic? Is it worse to beat up a fat sissy boy if the bullies think their victim is gay, or if they dislike him because he is fat? Crime is crime; assault is assault. All deserve punishment.
!CITE:
1998-122:12
Hateful thoughts may be disagreeable, but they are not crimes in themselves. The crimes that result from hateful thoughts — whether vandalism, assault or murder — are already punishable by existing statutes.
!CITE:
1998-122:13
In a speech at the University of Texas last year, libertarian activist Gene Cisewski said: “We should be anti-violence, period. Any act of violence has to be punished swiftly and severely and it shouldn’t matter who the victim is. The initiation of force is wrong and it doesn’t matter why — the mere fact you had a motive is enough.”
!CITE:
1998-122:14
Cisewski acknowledged the good intentions of those who propose hate-crime laws. He noted that “the reason for the call for (such laws) comes from bad enforcement of the laws.” Police and prosecutors have been willing to look the other way when victims came from unfavored groups. Luckily, in the Shepard case, the authorities seem unwavering in their prosecution. This is, unfortunately, not always the case.
!CITE:
1998-122:15
The answer, Cisewski suggested, and I agree, is that “we hold every law enforcement official and every court official who administers justice to the standard that every American is guaranteed equal protection under the law.”
!CITE:
1998-122:16
Hate-crime laws set up certain privileged categories of people, defined by the groups to which they belong, and offers them unequal protection under the law. This is wrong. It is sad to see a young man’s personal misfortune used by various special-interest groups to advance such an agenda.
!CITE:
1998-122:17
We are all shocked and dismayed by the assault on Shepard. Such brutality cannot, should not be countenanced. Let us not multiply the crimes of his attackers by writing bad law in response.
!TITLE:
Is Either Gentleman Opposed?
!DATE:
17 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-123:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the resolution?

The SPEAKER. The unanimous consent request did not allocate time on the basis of opposition.
!TITLE:
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
!DATE:
17 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-124:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the proper way.
!CITE:
1998-124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.
!CITE:
1998-124:3
Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.
!CITE:
1998-124:4
This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping this action.
!CITE:
1998-124:5
We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any more.
!CITE:
1998-124:6
We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House, must assume our responsibilities.
!CITE:
1998-124:7
I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.
!CITE:
1998-124:8
First and foremost, the notion that the United States can dictate the political leadership of a foreign policy is immoral. What right have we to determine these things for any nation other than our own? The answer, clearly, is “none,” we have no such right.
!CITE:
1998-124:9
There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.
!CITE:
1998-124:10
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress.
!CITE:
1998-124:11
As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the government of a sovereign nation.
!CITE:
1998-124:12
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes.
!CITE:
1998-124:13
Finally, even by the amoral measure of “realpolitik” the policy of Saddam’s removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who practice “realpolitik” this points to the fact that by the measures established by the “pragmatists” the stated policy of Saddam’s removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint.
!TITLE:
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
!DATE:
19 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-125:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment against the President. There is neither pleasure nor vindictiveness in this vote and I have found no one else taking this vote lightly. It seems though many of our colleagues are not pleased with the investigative process; some believing it to have been overly aggressive and petty, while others are convinced it has been unnecessarily limited and misdirected. It certainly raises the question of whether or not the special prosecutor rather than the Congress itself should be doing this delicate work of oversight. Strict adherence to the Constitution would reject the notion that Congress undermine the separations of power by delivering this oversight responsibility to the administration. The long delays and sharp criticisms of the special prosecutor could have been prevented if the Congress had not been dependent on the actions of an Attorney General’s appointee.
!CITE:
1998-125:2
The charges against the President are serious and straight forward: lying, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The main argument made in his defense is that these charges surround the sexual escapades of the President and therefore should not be considered as serious as they otherwise would be.
!CITE:
1998-125:3
But there are many people in this country and some members of Congress who sincerely believe we have over concentrated on the Lewinsky event while ignoring many other charges that have been pushed aside and not fully scrutinized by the House. It must not be forgotten that a resolution to inquire into the possible impeachment of the President was introduced two months before the nation became aware of Monica Lewinsky.
!CITE:
1998-125:4
For nearly six years there has been a steady and growing concern about the legal actions of the President. These charges seem almost endless: possible bribery related to Webb Hubble, foreign government influence in the 1996 presidential election, military technology given to China, FBI files, travel office irregularities, and many others. Many Americans are not satisfied that Congress has fully investigated the events surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
!CITE:
1998-125:5
The media and the administration has concentrated on the sexual nature of the investigation and this has done a lot to distract from everything else. The process has helped to make the President appear to be a victim of government prosecutorial overkill while ignoring the odious significance of the 1,000 FBI files placed for political reasons in the White House. If corruption becomes pervasive in any administration, yet no actual fingerprints of the president are found on indicting documents, there must come a time when the “CEO” becomes responsible for the actions of his subordinates. That is certainly true in business, the military, and in each congressional office.
!CITE:
1998-125:6
There is a major irony in this impeachment proceeding. A lot has been said the last two months by members of the Judiciary Committee on both side of the aisle regarding the Constitution and how it must be upheld. But if we are witnessing all of a sudden the serious move toward obeying constitutional restraints, I will anxiously look forward to the next session when 80 percent of our routine legislation will be voted down.
!CITE:
1998-125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.
!CITE:
1998-125:8
Much has been said about the support the President continues to receive from the American people in spite of his acknowledged misconduct. It does seem that the polls and the recent election indicate the public is not inclined to remove the President from office nor reward the Republicans for their efforts to investigate the Lewinsky affair. It is quite possible as many have suggested that the current status of the economy has a lot to do with this tolerance.
!CITE:
1998-125:9
The public’s acceptance of the President’s behavior may reflect the moral standards of our age, but I’m betting there’s a lot more to it. It is true that some conservative voters, demanding the Republicans in Congress hold the President to a greater accountability, “voted” by staying home. They did not want to encourage the Republicans who were seen as being soft on Clinton for his personal behavior and for capitulating on the big government agenda of more spending, and more taxes. But hopefully there is a much more profound reason for the seemingly inconsistent position of a public who condemns the President while not having the stomach for punishing him through impeachment.
!CITE:
1998-125:10
If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government.
!CITE:
1998-125:11
The political contest, as it has always been throughout history, remains between the desire for security and the love for liberty. When economic security is provided by the government, privacy and liberty must be sacrificed. The longer a welfare state lasts the greater the conflict between government intrusiveness and our privacy. Government efficiency and need for its financing through a ruthless tax system prompts the perpetual barrage of government agents checking on everything we do.
!CITE:
1998-125:12
Fortunately, the resentment toward government for its meddling in all aspects of our lives is strong and becoming more galvanized, and that should give us hope that all is not lost.
!CITE:
1998-125:13
But this resentment must be channeled in the right direction. Belief that privacy and liberty can be protected while the welfare state is perpetuated through ever higher taxes is an unrealizable dream.
!CITE:
1998-125:14
The “sympathy”, if that’s what we want to call it, for the President reflects the instinctive nature of most Americans who resent the prying eyes of big government. It’s easy to reason: “If the President of the United States can be the subject of a ‘sting operation’ and FBI ordered tape recordings, how can any of us be secure in our homes and papers?”
!CITE:
1998-125:15
The ambivalence comes from fear that demanding privacy, even for the President, means that his actions are then condoned. And turning this into a perjury issue has been difficult.
!CITE:
1998-125:16
The President, his advisors, and the friendly media were all aware that the sexual privacy issue would distract from the serious charges and knew it was their best chance to avoid impeachment.
!CITE:
1998-125:17
But the President, this Administration and the Congress have all been hypocritical for demanding privacy for themselves yet are the arch enemies of our privacy. Although other Administrations have abused the FBI and the IRS, this Administration has systematically abused these powers like none other.
!CITE:
1998-125:18
Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-125:19
Hopefully, the concept of the overly aggressive prosecutor will be condemned when it comes to overly aggressive activities of all the federal police agencies whether it’s the IRS, the BATF or any other authoritarian agency of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-125:20
A former U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, recently told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “the philosophy of (the Attorney General’s office) the last 10 to 15 years is whatever works is right,” when it comes to enforcing federal laws which essentially all are unconstitutional. It’s this attitude by the federal police agents that the American people must reject and not only when it applies to a particular President some want to shield.
!CITE:
1998-125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.
!CITE:
1998-125:22
It’s sad but there is another example of a most egregious abuse of presidential power, committed by the President, that has gotten no attention by the special prosecutors or the Congress. That is the attempt by the President to distract from the Monica Lewinsky testimony to the Grand Jury by bombing with cruise missiles both Sudan and Afghanistan, and the now current war against Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-125:23
Two hundred million dollars were spent on an illegal act of war against innocent people. The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was just that, a pharmaceutical plant, owned by a Muslim businessman who was standing up to the Islamic fundamentalists, the same people we pretend to oppose and use as scapegoats for all our Middle-Eastern policies. And now we have the controversial and unconstitutional waging of war in Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-125:24
And to add insult to injury both military operations ordered by Clinton were quickly praised by the Republican leaders as good and necessary policy. These acts alone should be enough for a serious consideration of impeachment, but it’s never mentioned — mainly because leadership of both parties for decades have fully endorsed our jingoism and bellicosity directed toward other nations when they do not do our bidding.
!CITE:
1998-125:25
Yes, the President’s tawdry affair and the acceptance of it to a large degree by the American people is not a good sign for us as a nation. But, let’s hope that out of this we have a positive result by recognizing the public’s rejection of the snooping actions of Big Brother. Let’s hope there’s a renewed interest in the Constitution and that Congress pays a lot more attention to it on a daily basis especially when it comes to waging war.
!CITE:
1998-125:26
The fact that President Clinton will most likely escape removal from office I find less offensive than the Congress’s and the media’s lack of interest in dealing with the serious charges of flagrant abuse of power, threatening political revenge, issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders, sacrificing U.S. sovereignty to world government, bribery, and illegal acts of war, along with the routine flaunting of the constitutional restraints that were placed there to keep our government small and limited in scope. 

!TITLE:
Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy
!DATE:
27 January 1998
!CITE:
1998-1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it appears the administration is about to bomb Iraq. The stated reason is to force UN inspections of every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. The President’s personal problems may influence this decision, but a flawed foreign policy is behind this effort.
!CITE:
1998-1:2
Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense.
!CITE:
1998-1:3
There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of Presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council.
!CITE:
1998-1:4
But the President is getting little support and a lot of resistance from our allies for this aggressive action.
!CITE:
1998-1:5
Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein, unify the Islamic Fundamentalists and expose American citizens to terrorist attacks. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit to further stir the hatred and blame toward America for all the approximate he has inflicted on his people.
!TITLE:
State Of The Republic
!DATE:
28 January 1998
!CITE:
1998-2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the first session of the 105th Congress has been completed and the third year of the conservative revolution has passed. Current Congressional leadership has declared victory and is now debating on how to spend the excess revenues about to flow into the Treasury.
!CITE:
1998-2:2
As the legislative year came to a close, the only serious debate was over the extent of the spending increases negotiated into the budget. The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Control over the Congress is not seriously threatened, and there has been no clear-cut rejection of the 20th century welfare state. But that does not mean that there is no effort to change the direction of the country. It is just that it is not yet in progress.
!CITE:
1998-2:3
But many taxpayers throughout the country are demanding change, and today there are more people in Washington expressing a sincere desire to shrink the welfare state than there were when I left 13 years ago. The final word on this has not yet been heard.
!CITE:
1998-2:4
In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and endanger our national security and the republic while perpetuating the status quo.
!CITE:
1998-2:5
Following are some of the flaws or errors in thinking about issues that I find pervasive throughout the Congress:
!CITE:
1998-2:6
Foreign affairs. Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny.
!CITE:
1998-2:7
The economy, crime, the environment, drugs, currency instability, and many other problems are important. But it is in the area of foreign policy and for interventionism that provokes the greatest threat to our liberties and sovereignty. Whenever there are foreign monsters to slay, regardless of their true threat to us, misplaced patriotic zeal is used to force us to look outward and away from domestic problems and the infractions placed on our personal liberties here at home.
!CITE:
1998-2:8
Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world’s superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military industrial complex and world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:9
Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e., to kill Hussein; and any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of all places, Kuwait.
!CITE:
1998-2:10
A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States’ continued military presence in the Middle East.
!CITE:
1998-2:11
A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.”
!CITE:
1998-2:12
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.
!CITE:
1998-2:13
In spite of the reservations and reasons to go slow, the only criticism coming from congressional leaders was that Clinton should do more, quicker, without any serious thought as to the consequences, which would be many.
!CITE:
1998-2:14
The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations.
!CITE:
1998-2:15
These days, not even the United States moves without permission from the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the history of U–2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense Department.
!CITE:
1998-2:16
There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war like Vietnam or small ones with bad results like in Somalia.
!CITE:
1998-2:17
Individual freedom is always under attack; and once there is any serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to rally around the President, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger and not weaker after the Persian Gulf War.
!CITE:
1998-2:18
The role of the military industrial complex cannot be ignored; and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever.
!CITE:
1998-2:19
But there is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign policy is less hidden than it had been in the past. In referring to the United States in the international oil company success in the Caspian Sea, a Houston newspaper recently proclaimed, “U.S. views pipelines as a big foreign policy victory.”
!CITE:
1998-2:20
This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the pipelines would be cheaper but would not satisfy our international government planners.
!CITE:
1998-2:21
So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.
!CITE:
1998-2:22
This attitude, as pervasive as it is in Washington, is tempered by the people’s instincts for minding our own business, not wanting Americans to be the policemen of the world, and deep concern for American sovereignty. The result, not too unusual, is for the politicians in Washington to be doing one thing while saying something else at home.
!CITE:
1998-2:23
At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found.
!CITE:
1998-2:24
The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of Bosnia. Yet the President gets all the funding he wants. The Members of Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, the President, the military industrial complex, and the special interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-2:25
Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:26
Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict.
!CITE:
1998-2:27
In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by power, oil and money.
!CITE:
1998-2:28
America’s effort to prevent a million casualties in Rwanda does not anywhere compare to our perennial effort to get Hussein. It is hardly violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction that motivates us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-2:29
We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing.
!CITE:
1998-2:30
There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction.
!CITE:
1998-2:31
Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous because the history of the West’s intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists that guarantees that friction will persist in this region no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.
!CITE:
1998-2:32
As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If the UN’s plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom, and lives.
!CITE:
1998-2:33
Yes, I fear a biological and even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all factions instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all factions depending on the circumstances.
!CITE:
1998-2:34
The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.
!CITE:
1998-2:35
But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-2:36
American interests around the world could best be served by friendship and trade with all who would be friends, and subsidies to none.
!CITE:
1998-2:37
The balanced budget. There is a naive assumption in Washington that the budget is under control and will soon be balanced, while believing perpetual prosperity is here and new programs can now be seriously considered. It reminds me of an old Chinese saying, when words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:38
Even the revolutionaries have claimed victory. One of the staunchest Members recently declared, in the end we achieved a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. Medicare and welfare were reformed, all in three short years, a truly remarkable record on how far we have come.
!CITE:
1998-2:39
I can understand a positive spin on events of the last three years by party leaders. That is what party leaders do. But the revolutionary members of the 104th Congress should not be taken in easily or quickly. But Washington has a strange way of dulling the senses, and no one enjoys peer rejection or lonely fights, where one is depicted as pursuing a fruitless adventure and appearing negative. Capitulating to the status quo is the road of least resistance, and rationalizations are generously offered up.
!CITE:
1998-2:40
It has been especially tempting for Members of Congress to accept the projection of higher revenues as a panacea to our budgetary problems. The prevailing attitude in Washington as 1997 came to a close was that the limited government forces had succeeded. The conservative revolution has won, and now it is time to move on and make government work more efficiently.
!CITE:
1998-2:41
I am sure some know better, but the real reason for these declarations of budgetary success is for the sole purpose of maintaining power. Minority leaders find themselves frustrated because they know spending has gone up, and the higher tax revenues have helped those in charge.
!CITE:
1998-2:42
The Republican Congress and President Clinton benefited, while the Democratic Congressional leaders could only ask why can’t more be spent on welfare if the country is doing so well? Fundamental problems like the size of the budget, the deficit, the debt, higher taxes, currency problems and excessive regulations were put on the back burner, if not ignored altogether.
!CITE:
1998-2:43
While complacency regarding foreign policy sets the stage for danger overseas, this naive attitude regarding the budget and the deficit is permitting the welfare state to be reenergized and cancel entirely any efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.
!CITE:
1998-2:44
Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.
!CITE:
1998-2:45
It is not going to happen. 1997 has proven what many have suspected, that reversing or arresting a welfare state cannot occur by majority vote. With apparent wealth abundance in the United States, the reversal assuredly will not come with ease. Once redistribution of wealth is permitted by the democratic vote, destruction of production will occur before the majority will choose to curtail their own benefits.
!CITE:
1998-2:46
The end is closer than most realize, considering the optimistic rhetoric coming from Washington, plus the fact the majority of citizens are beneficiaries of the system, and even the producers have grown dependent on government protection, grants, contracts and special subsidies.
!CITE:
1998-2:47
Although the session ended on a modestly happy bipartisan note, I suspect in time 1997 will be looked upon as a sad year, in that the limited government revolution of 1994 was declared lost by adjournment time in November.
!CITE:
1998-2:48
That does not mean the fight for liberty is over, but the hope that came by reversing Congressional rule after 40 years has been dampened and a lot more work is necessary for success. The real battle is to win the hearts and minds of Americans outside of Washington to prepare the country for the day when the welfare state ceases to function due to an empty treasury and the dollar, not worth its weight, comes under attack.
!CITE:
1998-2:49
Specifics worth pondering: The budget for current fiscal year 1998 calls for expenditures of $1.69 trillion, or $89 billion above last year. The 1997 budget was $22 billion over 1996. The so-called balanced budget bragged about is to occur in the year 2002, with more cuts being made in the year 2001 and a level of spending far above today’s. The expenditures in the year 2002 are expected to increase to $1.9 trillion, over $200 billion more than this year.
!CITE:
1998-2:50
Increased revenues obviously accomplish the job of a theoretically balanced budget, but also these projections do not take into account the huge sums borrowed from Social Security. Even if things go well and as planned, the optimism is based on deception, wishful thinking and a huge raid on the Social Security and other trust funds. In spite of this, the politicians in Washington are eagerly planning on how to spend the coming budgetary surpluses.
!CITE:
1998-2:51
All these rosy projections are dependent on economic strength, steady low interest rates, and no supplemental appropriations. Every session of Congress gets supplementals, and if the economy takes a downturn, the higher the appropriation.
!CITE:
1998-2:52
The last three years are not much to brag about. Domestic spending has gone up by $183 billion. In the prior three years, when Democrats controlled the Congress, spending increased by $155 billion. Tax increases are now inevitably referred to as revenue enhancement and closing of loopholes.
!CITE:
1998-2:53
In spite of some wonderful IRS bashing by nearly everyone and positive hearings in exposing the ruthless tactics of the IRS, Congress and the President saw fit to give the IRS a whopping $729 million increase in its budget, hoping the IRS will become more efficient in their collection procession. Real spending cuts are not seriously considered.
!CITE:
1998-2:54
Congress continues to obfuscate by calling token cuts in previously proposed increases as budget cuts. The media and the proponents of big government and welfare obediently demagogue this issue by decrying why the slashes in the budget are inhumane and uncaring.
!CITE:
1998-2:55
Without honesty in language and budgeting, true reforms are impossible. In spite of the rhetoric, bold new educational and medical programs were started, setting the stage for massive new spending in the future. New programs always cost more than originally projected. The block grant approach to reform did not prompt a decrease in spending, and frequently added to it. The principle of whether or not the Federal Government should even be involved in education, medicine, welfare, farming, et cetera, was not seriously considered.
!CITE:
1998-2:56
The 1998 budget is the largest ever and represents the biggest increase in the domestic budget in eight years. Those in charge threw in the towel and surrendered all efforts this past year to cut back the size of government. In this fiscal year, many concede the deficit will actually go up, even without a slowing in the economy.
!CITE:
1998-2:57
In this year’s budget, Medicare and Medicaid increased four to five times the rate of inflation. This is not a complete surprise to the logical skeptics when it comes to fiscal matters, but it is just a little exasperating to hear the positive pronouncements of current leaders who just a few years ago would have been only too eager to point out the shortcomings of deceptive arithmetic.
!CITE:
1998-2:58
Power is a corrupting influence, but, for now, at least, a Congressional power shift is not in the making. There are still a lot of recipients that are happily reassured that additional revenues can be found. The new management is welcomed, and it is hoped the new guys on the block can salvage for a while a system that many deep down in their hearts are convinced is not manageable for much longer.
!CITE:
1998-2:59
There is a sense of relief the welfare state has received a reprieve. One can almost hear the sigh amplified by hearing of the problems in the Southeast Asia countries with their currency and stock market problems, not realizing it is the U.S. taxpayers and the dollar that will be called upon for the bailout of this financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-2:60
The great danger of all of this is the false sense of economic security Congress feels, that has prompted total abandonment of efforts to actually cut any spending and with plans being laid for spending increases.
!CITE:
1998-2:61
The message is this: The politicians will never limit spending, but, eventually, the market will. It has already done so in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.
!CITE:
1998-2:62
The international currency crisis: Congress lacks concern and understanding of the significance of the Asian currency crisis. Monetary policy has never excited many Members of the Committee on Banking, let alone other members of Congress. A handful of Members do consistently complain to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but inevitably it is to object to the high interest rates and not enough credit being available to either the poor or the rich beneficiaries of Central Bank credit largesse.
!CITE:
1998-2:63
The Southeast Asian currency and economic bailout will exceed $100 billion. We will be propping up these currencies by sending American taxpayers’ dollars, the same thing we did in Mexico in 1995. Multilateral efforts through the IMF, World Bank and other development banks are used, and in each one the United States is the most generous donor.
!CITE:
1998-2:64
IMF bailouts, just as our military foreign intervention, are generally supported by the leadership of both parties. The establishment has firm control in these two areas and who, out of ignorance or neglect, the Congress as a whole provides little resistance. When the stronger currencies, in this case the dollar, props up a weaker currency, it is nothing more than an example of an international transfer of payment that helps our banks and international corporate investors who have financial exposure in the country or currency under attack.
!CITE:
1998-2:65
These bailouts will work, to some degree, until the dollar itself comes under attack. Our relatively strong economy and the current perceptions of undue dollar strength allows great leverage in this extremely expensive and risky bailout operation.
!CITE:
1998-2:66
The genius of it all is that Federal Reserve credit expansion and its off-budget budgeting permits these funds to be spent without oversight. IMF appropriations are not even counted toward the deficit, and credit expansion is under complete control of the Federal Reserve.
!CITE:
1998-2:67
Long-term, the average American citizen suffers through higher interest rates, rising prices, recessions and lower standard of living, but the cause and effect is conveniently hidden from the public and the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-2:68
After the Mexican bailout, her citizens lost 50 percent of their purchasing power, a dramatic pay cut. Yet the great danger is that some day we will be forced to pay, possibly with a dollar crisis that will make the Asian currency crisis look small in comparison.
!CITE:
1998-2:69
All currency crises are serious and usher in economic and political problems for the country involved, and since no one likes it, blame is generally misplaced.
!CITE:
1998-2:70
When the dollar comes under attack, since it is the reserve currency of the world, a much more serious crisis than we are currently witnessing in Asia will occur. Only a universal acceptance of a single worldwide commodity standard of money can prevent these periodic devaluations and disruptions in trade that are so prevalent today.
!CITE:
1998-2:71
The day before we adjourned the first session of the 105th Congress, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held hearings on the Asian currency crisis, but it was more an attempt to reassure the financial community than to sort out the cause and do something about it.
!CITE:
1998-2:72
Instead, the dollar was crowned king, and Greenspan promised stability. Our real interest rates, balance of payments, our current account deficit and budgetary deficits were conveniently ignored, because if they had been looked at seriously, it would have been recognized that the U.S. and the world faces a major financial crisis once the dollar can no longer be used to bail out the world financial system.
!CITE:
1998-2:73
Currency issues are serious and a much bigger problem than Congress realizes. Even the Fed has convinced itself it is quite capable of managing our fiat currency and our financial markets through any crisis. The money managers are every bit as powerful as the Congress, which taxes and spends, but the Federal Reserve’s actions are much less scrutinized.
!CITE:
1998-2:74
But when push comes to shove, the markets always win out. Interest rates are less than one percent in Japan, but have not prompted borrowers to come forth nor bankers to lend. The proposed $25 billion injection by the Bank of Japan will not solve the problem either. Even central bankers cannot push on a string.
!CITE:
1998-2:75
The sad part is that all these shenanigans will cause undue suffering to the innocent who lose their jobs, suffer from price inflation and see their standard of living shrink.
!CITE:
1998-2:76
Eventually, everyone though is threatened by the political disruption that can ensue with a currency mishap. Our greatest concern should be for our loss of liberties that so often accompany a currency crisis. Congressional attitude toward monetary policy is not likely to change soon, so we can expect a lot more turmoil in the currency markets in the months ahead.
!CITE:
1998-2:77
Two special areas. Congress in the past year capitulated in two significant areas by not only failing to cut spending, but massively increasing government’s role in medicine and in education. House Republicans bragged that 7 out of 8 educational initiatives passed the House, many of them being quite expensive. Charter schools cost over $100 million, funding for vouchers was increased, $3 billion was appropriated to extend student loans, and a new $210 million reading in excellence program was initiated. A program for high-tech training and one designed to help children with disabilities was also started.
!CITE:
1998-2:78
Clinton’s new health care program for children was accepted by Congress, which will eventually cost billions and further centralize medical care in Washington, while quality of care is diminished. Billions of dollars increased in NIH, AIDS research and preventative health care were also approved.
!CITE:
1998-2:79
The Federal Government has been involved in education and medicine more than in any other domestic area. This has caused a serious price inflection for these two services, while undermining the quality and results in both. The more we spend, the higher the cost, the worse the service, and the greater the regulations. So what did Congress do to solve the problems in the past year? Even in this so-called age of cutting back and a balanced budget, it expanded government precisely in the two areas that suffer the most from big government.
!CITE:
1998-2:80
This is strong evidence that we have not yet learned anything in the past 50 years, and the 1994 revolution has not yet changed things. We can expect more HMO’s and PPO mismanagement, rationing medical service and price control of all medical services. Shortages of quality health care and education will result.
!CITE:
1998-2:81
Devolution. Block grants are the popular vehicle to restore local control of the Federal bureaucracy. The housing bill, the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding through the block grant system of devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made in the early 1970s under Nixon called revenue-sharing. It did not work and was dropped.
!CITE:
1998-2:82
This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in Washington or in the State capitols, it will not change the dynamics of public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, cannot replace the benefits of private ownership. Besides, the block grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to the various State entities. Strings will always be attached no matter how many safeguards are written into the law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the Federal Government or even the State governments ought to be involved. The high hopes that this process will alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after many more years of failures and dollars spent.
!CITE:
1998-2:83
There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If the funding for the pornographic NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government should we expect to be? The devolution approach is not the proponents of big government’s first choice, but it is acceptable to them. Early adjournment meant the call for more spending was satisfied and the supporters of big government, in spite of the rhetoric, were content. Searching for a partisan issue, the minority was content with campaign reform and the questions surrounding illegal voting.
!CITE:
1998-2:84
Devolution is said to be a return to States rights since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
!CITE:
1998-2:85
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State.
!CITE:
1998-2:86
Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.
!CITE:
1998-2:87
After giving a short speech criticizing the inconsistency of our foreign policy, another Member quickly rose to his feet and used the Walter Emerson quote to criticize my efforts saying, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Criticizing another Member for following a consistent freedom philosophy and strict adherence to the Constitution is more of an attempt to reassure the critics themselves who are uneasy with their own position. Obviously, criticizing one for consistency either means that pragmatism and inconsistency is something to be proud of, or there is little respect for the philosophy that is consistently being defended, a truth the critics are not likely to admit.
!CITE:
1998-2:88
Public relation debates. Oftentimes the big debates in Congress are more public relation efforts than debates on real issues. This is certainly true when it comes to preventing foreign aid funds from being used by any organization for abortions. I agree with and vote for all attempts to curtail the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds for abortion within or outside the United States. But many in the pro-life movement are not interested in just denying all birth control, population control and abortion money to everyone, and avoid the very controversial effort to impose our will on other nations. Believing money allocated to any organization or country is not fungible is naive, to say the least. The biggest problem is that many who are sincerely right to life and believe the Mexico City language restriction on foreign aid will work are also philosophic believers in internationalism, both social and military.
!CITE:
1998-2:89
The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people.
!CITE:
1998-2:90
It is conceded by the majority on both sides of this debate that the U.N., the IMF, the development banks and even the funds for population control are legitimate expenditures and eventually will be funded. The question is only whether or not a public relations victory can be achieved by the radical pro-abortion supporters of the President’s or the pro-life supporters.
!CITE:
1998-2:91
We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction debate moot.
!CITE:
1998-2:92
Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.
!CITE:
1998-2:93
The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments.
!CITE:
1998-2:94
Corporatism. Congress and the administration is greatly influenced by corporate America. We truly have a system of corporatism that if not checked will evolve into a much more threatening form of fascism. Our welfare system provides benefits for the welfare poor and, in return, the recipients vote to perpetuate the entire system. Both parties are quite willing to continue the status quo in not questioning the authority upon which these programs are justified, but the general public is unaware of how powerful corporate America is in changing and influencing legislation. Even those programs said to be specific for the poor, like food stamps, housing, education and medicine, have corporate beneficiaries. These benefits to corporate America are magnified when it is realized that many of the welfare redistributionist programs are so often not successful in helping the poor.
!CITE:
1998-2:95
But there are many other programs precisely designed to satisfy the special interests of big business. A casual observer that might think the political party that champions the needs of the poor would not be getting political and financial support from the rich. But quite clearly, both parties are very willing to receive financial and political support from special interests representing the rich and the poor, business and labor, domestic and foreign.
!CITE:
1998-2:96
We should not expect campaign reform are reliable revelations of campaign fund-raising abuse in today’s political climate. There are strong bipartisan reasons to keep the debate on only a superficial level. All the rules in the world will never eliminate the motivation or the ability of the powerful special interests to influence Congress. Loopholes and illegal contributions will plague us for as long as Congress continues with the power to regulate, tax, or detax, or punishes essentially everyone participating in the economy.
!CITE:
1998-2:97
The most we can ever hope for is to demand full disclosure. Then, if influence is bought, at least it would be in the open. The other most difficult task, and the only thing that will ever dampen special interest control of government, would be to radically reduce the power of Congress over our lives and our economy. Taxpayer funding of campaigns would prove disastrous.
!CITE:
1998-2:98
The special areas of the budget that are of specific benefit to corporate America are literally too numerous to count, but there are some special programs benefiting corporations that usually prompt unconditional support from both parties. The military industrial complex is clearly recognized for its influence in Washington. This same group has a vested interest in our foreign policy that encourages policing the world, Nation building, and foreign social engineering. Big contracts are given to friendly corporations in places like Haiti, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf region. Corporations benefiting from these programs are unable to deal objectively with foreign policy issues, and it is not unusual for these same corporate leaders to lobby for troop deployments in worldwide military intervention. The U.S. remains the world’s top arms manufacturer and our foreign policy permits the exports to world customers subsidized through the Export-Import Bank. Foreign aid, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, IMF, World Bank, development banks are all used to continue bailouts of Third World countries heavily invested in by our corporations and banks. Corporations can get special tax treatment that only the powerful and influential can achieve. For instance, pseudo-free trade legislation like NAFTA and GATT and the recent Fast Track legislation shows how much big business influences both congressional leaders and the administration.
!CITE:
1998-2:99
While crumbs are cast to the poor with programs that promote permanent dependency and impoverishment, the big bucks go to the corporations and the banking elites. The poor welcome the crumbs, not realizing how much long-term harm the programs do as they obediently continue to vote for a corporate-biased welfare state where the rich get richer and the poor get forgotten. Since generally both parties support a different version of interventionism, one should not expect the programs for the rich to be attacked on principle or cut in size. The result of last year’s legislative session should surprise no one.
!CITE:
1998-2:100
Both types of welfare expenditures benefit from a monetary system that creates credit out of thin air in order to monetize congressional deficits when needed and manipulate interest rates downward to nonmarket levels to serve the interests of big borrowers and lenders. Federal Reserve policy is an essential element in serving the powerful special interests. Monetary mischief of this type will not likely be ended by congressional action, but will be eventually stopped by market forces, just as has recently occurred in the Far East.
!CITE:
1998-2:101
Voluntary contracts. There is little understanding or desire in Congress to consistently protect voluntary contract. Many of our programs to improve race relations have come from government interference in the voluntary economic contract. Government’s role in a free society should be to enforce contracts, yet too often it does the opposite. All labor laws, affirmative action programs and consumer protection laws are based on the unconstitutional authority of government to regulate voluntary economic contracts. If the same process were applied to the press, it would be correctly condemned as prior restraint and ruled unconstitutional.
!CITE:
1998-2:102
Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold society and improve personal moral behavior.
!CITE:
1998-2:103
But these same champions of personal liberty do not hesitate at all to use the same government force they readily condemn in social matters to impose their vision of a fair and equitable economic system on all of us.
!CITE:
1998-2:104
Thousands of laws and regulations are on the books to assure equality in hiring, pay, and numerous other conditions of employment and for theoretical consumer protection.
!CITE:
1998-2:105
Ironically, the enemies of the voluntary contract, when dealing with the media and personal associations, are the best defenders of economic liberty and the voluntary economic contract.
!CITE:
1998-2:106
Unless this glaring inconsistency is reconciled, the republic cannot be salvaged. Too often, the two sides compromise in the wrong direction. Economic libertarians concede too much to the welfare proponents and the social libertarians concede too much to the authoritarians who eagerly try to legislate good behavior. This willingness to compromise, while at the same time criticizing those who have firm beliefs as being overly rigid, serves as a serious threat to the cause of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:107
A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist legislation.
!CITE:
1998-2:108
Once government loses sight of its true purpose of protecting liberty and embarks on a course where the generous use of force is used to interfere in the voluntary social and economic contracts, liberty will be diminished and the foundation of a true republic undermined.
!CITE:
1998-2:109
That is where we are today. The effort on both sides to do “good” threatens personal liberty. There is no evidence that laws designed to improve personal sexual habits, the quality of the press or the plight of the poor have helped. The poor, under all programs of forced redistribution of wealth, always become more numerous. And the State inevitably abuses its power when it tries to regulate freedom of expression or improve personal behavior.
!CITE:
1998-2:110
Too often both sides allow the principle of government force to be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at a great cost and risk to American taxpayers, while accomplishing little except to promote a firm hatred of America for the interference. This itself is a threat to our security. The resulting conditions of international conflict are used as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties of all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-2:111
In recent years, freedom of the press has been severely challenged when we are actively involved in military operations. Our young people are threatened as they are needlessly exposed to enemy fire and medical experimentation and there is an economic cost through higher taxes.
!CITE:
1998-2:112
National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.
!CITE:
1998-2:113
Only with a greater understanding and respect for individual liberty and the importance of voluntary associations in all areas of social and economic life will we be able to preserve our liberty, peace and prosperity. This is required for the republic to survive.
!CITE:
1998-2:114
Congress reflects the nation’s current obsession with political correctness. The strange irony is that this whole movement has been encouraged by groups and individuals who in the past have been seen as the champions of free expression and civil liberties. These efforts to interfere with freedom of expression come from a desire to punish those in economic superior positions. Political correctness encourages promotions or firings for casual and rude statements once ridiculed by merely ignoring them. The age of victimization demands political correctness be carried to an illogical conclusion and the plan for perfect economic equality demands language that reflect these goals. It’s truly an area that reflects a complete lack of understanding of the principles of liberty and is an understandable result of this century’s division of liberty into two parts. The motive seems to be to make people better by forcing them to use only correct language and to provide special benefits to groups that are economically disadvantaged. It’s not uncommon to hear of people losing their jobs and reputation over harmless comments or telling off-colored jokes. Talk about discrimination, this is the worst.
!CITE:
1998-2:115
The concept of “hate crimes” is now enmeshed in all legislation. Pretending we can measure motivation and punish it is preposterous. Varying penalties, thus placing more value on one life than another, is a totalitarian idea.
!CITE:
1998-2:116
The political correctness movement and the concept of hate crimes will lead to laws against “hate speech.” Clearly the constitution is designed to protect protesters, even those who express hatred at times and is not limited to the protection of non-controversial speech. Freedom of expression is indeed under serious attack in this country. Already there are laws in two countries prohibiting even questioning the details of the Holocaust. In America that’s certainly not permitted under the rules of political correctness.
!CITE:
1998-2:117
Some still believe that “hate crimes” in America are limited to identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. But it’s scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.
!CITE:
1998-2:118
Whatever happened to the child’s logic of “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?” This basic philosophy offered a logical response to taunts by bullies. Today, the bully is the government which is determined to regulate, enforce, and imprison anyone who doesn’t tow the line of political correctness, multi-culturalism and follow government dictated social and economic rules.
!CITE:
1998-2:119
But why can’t we consider a solution that incorporates the healthy skepticism of those opposing government mandated V-chips and telephone monitoring devices with those who see the foolishness and danger of political correctness, especially seen when it comes to enforcing crimes against hate speech. Too often the same people who understand the hate crimes issue are the ones that believe government ought to be able to monitor our telephone and computer and censor television programming.
!CITE:
1998-2:120
This confusion is becoming structural and the longer it’s an accepted principle, the greater the threat to the Republic and our liberties.
!CITE:
1998-2:121
As long as it is fashionable or humorous to refer to one who consistently defends individual liberty as a “hobgoblin of little minds” our liberties will be threatened. Accepting and rationalizing any inconsistency while rejecting the principal defenders of a free society as impractical represents a danger to the republic. A strict adherence to the Constitution is surely not something that should be encouraged or tolerated, according to these critics.
!CITE:
1998-2:122
By insisting that all government action be guided by tolerance and compromise in any effort to protect liberty, it is only natural that strict observance to standards in other areas would be abandoned. And it is true, we now live in an age where life has relative value, money has no definition, marriage is undefinable, moral values are taught as relative ethics in our classrooms, good grades in the classroom no longer reflect excellence, success in business is often subjected to doubts because of affirmative action, and corporate profits depend more on good lobbyists in Washington than creative effort.
!CITE:
1998-2:123
Pragmatism and interventionism are popular because of their convenience and appeal to those who crave governing over others and those who expect unearned benefits. This process can last a long time when some incentives to produce remain in place. But eventually it leads to an attack on the value of money confiscatory taxation, over regulation, excessive borrowing on the future and undermining of trust in the political process. Once this system is entrenched, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to gracefully reverse the process.
!CITE:
1998-2:124
The usual result is the various groups receiving benefits become highly competitive and bitter toward each other. Eventually, it leads to a time when compromise and government planning no longer look practical nor fair. In the next few years, we can expect this to become more evident as Congress will be forced to acknowledge that the budget has more problems than was admitted to in the closing days of the first session of the 105th Congress.
!CITE:
1998-2:125
If we do not define the type of government we are striving for and reject interventionism as a doctrine, the endless debate will remain buried in details of form and degree of the current system with no discussion of substance. Merely deciding where to draw the line on government involvement in our lives will consume all the energy of the legislative process. Whether or not we should be involved at all will receive little attention.
!CITE:
1998-2:126
In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government’s responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with the President as saying, “I tell you, a decent society is not based on rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.”
!CITE:
1998-2:127
This sounds just a tad authoritarian and closer to the Communist Manifesto than to the Magna Carta or to the Bill of Rights.
!CITE:
1998-2:128
A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is the only “decent” society and the only one that I care to live in. A free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon which our republic rests.
!CITE:
1998-2:129
Yet today most of the West, now engulfed by Keynesian welfarism, sadly accepts the Blair philosophy. Duty and responsibility, as Blair sees it, is not the voluntary responsibility found in a free society but rather duty and responsibility to the State. He is right about one thing. If duty to the State is accepted as an uncontested fact, rights are meaningless. And everyday our rights are indeed becoming more threatened.
!CITE:
1998-2:130
We have come to accept it as immoral and selfish to demand individual rights. Today, rights are too frequently accepted as being collective, such as minority, gay, women, handicapped, poor, or student rights. But rights are only individual. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and property, and it comes naturally or is a God-given gift.
!CITE:
1998-2:131
The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone’s rights. The whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with the efforts ending in failure.
!CITE:
1998-2:132
National governments should exist to protect individual liberty at home by enforcing laws against violence and fraud and from outside threats. The bigger and more international government becomes, the more likely it is that the effort will fail.
!CITE:
1998-2:133
The original challenge to the champions of freedom centuries ago was always to limit the powers of the king. Today the challenge, every bit as great but harder to define, is to limit the power of democratic parliaments and congresses. Democratic elections of leaders is one thing, but obsession with determining all rights by majority vote has now become liberty’s greatest enemy.
!CITE:
1998-2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
!CITE:
1998-2:135
When government’s sole purpose is to protect the lowliest of the minority, the individual, there will be no market for influence buying. Regulating the peddlers of graft will only make things worse for the rules will further undermine the right of the individual to petition and seek his own redress of grievances.
!CITE:
1998-2:136
Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon which we have embarked.
!CITE:
1998-2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:138
The main motivation behind these mass murders was to maintain political power. Liberty in many ways has become the forgotten cause of the 20th century. Even the mildest mannered welfarist depends on government guns and threats of prison to forcefully extract wealth from producers to transfer it to the politically well-connected. The same government force is used by the powerful rich to promote from the programs designed to benefit them.
!CITE:
1998-2:139
The budgetary process and the transfer of wealth that occurs through monetary inflation is influenced more by the business and banking elite than by the poor. The $1.7 trillion budget is not an investment in liberty. The kings are gone and I doubt that we will see another Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao, but the “majority” in our legislative bodies now reign supreme with one goal in mind: maintaining power.
!CITE:
1998-2:140
To do this they must satisfy the power brokers, pretending they are humanitarian saviors while ignoring their responsibility to protect individual liberty.
!CITE:
1998-2:141
“Democracy” is now the goal of all those who profess progress and peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world government.
!CITE:
1998-2:142
The question is, where will our alternative come from? Which group or individual truly speaks for liberty and limited government? The speeches, the rhetoric, the campaigns rarely reveal the underlying support most politicians have for expanding the State, especially when coming from those who are thought to be promoting limited government.
!CITE:
1998-2:143
Those who believe in welfare and socialism are frequently more straightforward. But we are now hearing from some traditional “opponents” of big government, admonishing us to stop “trashing” government. Instead, we should be busy “fixing it.” They do it without once challenging the moral principle that justifies all government intervention in our personal lives and economic transactions.
!CITE:
1998-2:144
William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government saying, “. . . some of today’s antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you come away with the impression that government has never done anything well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air and water remains clean.”
!CITE:
1998-2:145
Bennett’s great concern is this. “Disdain of representative government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to instill in citizens a noble love of country” (the State rather than liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country because of their “utter contempt some have directed against government itself.” In other words, we must love our government ruled by the tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom and America.
!CITE:
1998-2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.
!TITLE:
America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq
!DATE:
4 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Saudis this past week expressed a sincere concern about an anti-American backlash if we start bombing Baghdad. We should not ignore the feelings of the Saudis. If a neighbor can oppose this bombing, we should be very cautious.
!CITE:
1998-3:2
In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money.
!CITE:
1998-3:3
And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists.
!CITE:
1998-3:4
There is no real benefit to pursuing this. Our own military has said this is like putting on a show. It is political, not a military operation.
!TITLE:
Congress Should Move Cautiously On Resolution Regarding Iraq
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, in 1964, a resolution passed this Congress which urged the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
!CITE:
1998-4:2
Today there is a resolution floating around this Congress that urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We should remember history. We lost 50,000 men after we passed that last resolution. We do not have a sensible policy with Iraq. We should move cautiously.
!CITE:
1998-4:3
Madam Speaker, I would also urge other Members to be cautious when they talk about a surgical strike and assassination. Assassination of foreign leaders is still illegal under our law.
!CITE:
1998-4:4
I urge my fellow colleagues, please, be cautious, be careful, and be wise when it comes to giving this President the right to wage war. Ironically, this President did not respond in the same manner with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
!TITLE:
Supporting H.R. 2846
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-5:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
!CITE:
1998-5:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule; and I support H.R. 2846, which forbids the use of Federal funds to develop or implement a national test without explicit authorization from Congress.
!CITE:
1998-5:3
Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the executive branch should support this bill. The administration’s plan to develop and implement a national testing program without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-5:4
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-5:5
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.
!CITE:
1998-5:6
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846 which stops the administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the Federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on American parents so they may better provide for the education of their own children.
!TITLE:
National Education Test
!DATE:
5 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 2846, which forbids the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National Test without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the Executive Branch should support this bill as the Administration’s plan to develop and implement a national education test without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-6:2
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the United States Government.
!CITE:
1998-6:3
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children — individual states, local communities, and, primarily, parents.
!CITE:
1998-6:4
Implementation of a national test also must be opposed because of its primary effect: the de facto creation of a national curriculum. Many supporters of a national testing try to minimize this threat to local and parental sovereignty by claiming the program would be voluntary. However, these are many of the same people who consider Goals 2000 a “voluntary” program, despite the numerous times Goals 2000 uses the terms “shall” and “must” in describing state functions. Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as colleagues and employers inevitably begin to use national tests as the standard by which students are measure for college entrance exams and entry-level jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find federal, and perhaps even state, funding conditioned upon their “voluntary” participation in the national testing program.
!CITE:
1998-6:5
Educators will react to this pressure to ensure students scored highly on the national test by “teaching to the test” — that is, structuring the curriculum so students learn those subjects, and only those subjects covered by the national tests. As University of Kansas Professor John Poggio remarked in February of last year, “What gets tested is what will be taught.” Government bureaucrats would then control the curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national test!
!CITE:
1998-6:6
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as performance on the national tests becomes the standard by which student performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face increasing pressure to participate in national testing and shape what is taught to fit the criteria of the tests.
!CITE:
1998-6:7
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government can control the curriculum of every school in the nation. Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of education.
!CITE:
1998-6:8
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America’s parents so they may provide for the education of their own children.
!TITLE:
Three Important Issues For America
!DATE:
11 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a few problems I think this country still faces. I want to mention three, but I will talk more about one in particular.
!CITE:
1998-7:2
Overall, I believe this country faces a serious problem in that our government is too big. When government is big, it means that liberty is threatened. Today, our governments throughout the land consume more than half of what the American people produce. In order to do that, there has to be curtailment on individual liberty.
!CITE:
1998-7:3
In the attempt to help people in a welfare-warfare state, unfortunately the poor never seem to be helped. A lot of money is spent, but due to the monetary system that we have, inevitably, the middle class tends to get wiped out and the poor get poorer, and very often in the early stages the wealthy get wealthier. In the meantime, the corporations seem to do quite well. So we live in an age where we have a fair amount of corporatism associated with the welfare-warfare state in which we live.
!CITE:
1998-7:4
The three specific problems that I want to mention, and I mention these because I think this is what the American people are concerned about, and sometimes we here inside the Beltway do not listen carefully to the people around the country. The three issues are these: The first are the scandals that we hear so much about, the second is an IMF bailout, and the third has to do with Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-7:5
Now, the scandals have been around a bit. We have heard about Travelgate and Filegate, and we also heard about interference in foreign policy dealing with foreign donations. Now, those I consider very serious and for this reason I join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) in his resolution to initiate an inquiry into the seriousness of these charges. Some of these charges have been laid aside mainly because there is another scandal in the news, something that has been much more attractive to the media, and that essentially is all that we have been hearing of in the last several weeks. I think this is a distraction from some of the issues that we should deal with. But that is not the one issue that I want to dwell on this evening.
!CITE:
1998-7:6
The IMF is another issue that I think is very important. This funding will be coming up soon. The Congress will be asked to appropriate $18 billion to bail out the Southeast Asian currencies and countries, and this is a cost; although we are told it does not cost anything, it does not add to the deficit, there is obviously a cost, and we cannot convince the American people that there is no cost just because of our method of budgeting and we do not add it into the deficit.
!CITE:
1998-7:7
Once again, these funds, whether they go to Southeast Asia or whether they go to Mexico, they never seem to help the little people; they never help the poor people. The poor are poorer than ever in Mexico, and yet the politicians and the corporations and the bankers even in this country get the bailout. This $18 billion is nothing more than another bailout.
!CITE:
1998-7:8
Now, the third issue is Iraq, and I want to talk more about that, because I am fearful we are about ready to do something very foolish, very foolish for our country, and very dangerous.
!CITE:
1998-7:9
Of these three issues, there is a common thread. When we think about the scandals, we talk about international finance, a large amount of dollars flowing into this country to influence our elections and possibly play a role in our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-7:10
Also, the IMF, which has to do with international finance, the IMF is under the United Nations and therefore it gets a lot of attention and we are asked to appropriate $18 billion.
!CITE:
1998-7:11
Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned.
!CITE:
1998-7:12
Just look at what we have been able to do since World War II without a declaration of war. Precisely. Why are we doing this? And precisely because when we do it, what generally happens is that we are not fighting these wars, and they are not police actions, these are wars, and we are not fighting them because of national interests. We are not fighting them for national security, and therefore, we do not fight to win, and subsequently, what war can we really be proud of since World War II? We have not won them. We set the stage for more problems later on. The Persian Gulf War has led to the stalemate that we have here today, and it goes on and on. I think this is a very important subject.
!CITE:
1998-7:13
War should only be declared for moral reasons. The only moral war is a defensive war and when our country is threatened. Then it is legitimate to come to the people and the people then, through their Members in the House and Senate, and the President then declare war, and then they fight that war to win. But today that is considered very old fashioned, and the consensus here in this Congress is that it will not take much for Congress to pass a resolution.
!CITE:
1998-7:14
What worries me, though, somewhat is that this resolution will not be circulated among the Members for days and weeks and have real serious debate. There is always the possibility that a resolution like this will come up suddenly. There will be little debate, and then a vote, and an endorsement for this policy. The first resolution that has been discussed over in the Senate had language very, very similar to the same language used in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which endorsed the expansion of the war in Vietnam, where 50,000 men were lost, and it was done not with a declaration of war, but by casual agreement by the Congress to go along.
!CITE:
1998-7:15
Congress should have and take more responsibility for these actions. It is only the Congress that should pursue an act of war. Bombing is an act of war, especially if it is a country halfway around the world and a country that has not directly threatened our national security.
!CITE:
1998-7:16
All of the stories about the monstrosities that occur and how terrible the leader might be may have some truth to it, but that does not justify throwing out the rule of law and ignoring our Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-7:17
This effort that is about to be launched, it has not been endorsed by our allies. It is getting very difficult to even get the slightest token endorsement by our allies to start this bombing. One would think if Saddam Hussein was a true threat to that region, his neighbors would be the first ones to be willing to march and to be willing to go to battle to defend themselves. But they are saying, do not even put your troops here, do not launch your effort from our soil, because it is not in our best interests to do so. Kuwait, the country that we went to war over not too long ago has given some token endorsement, but even their newspapers are carrying news stories that really challenge what the people might be saying about this effort.
!CITE:
1998-7:18
There was a Kuwaiti professor who was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, the U.S. frightens us with ads to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies, thus, ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States continued military presence in the Middle East. That is not my opinion; that is a Kuwaiti professor writing in a government newspaper in Kuwait.
!CITE:
1998-7:19
A Kuwaiti legislator who was not willing to reveal his name said the use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it. Most people realize that. In the Middle East, Saddam Hussein has more credibility among his Arab neighbors than he did before the war.
!CITE:
1998-7:20
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.
!CITE:
1998-7:21
Now, these are very important comments to be considered, especially when we are getting ready to do something so serious as to condone the bombing of another country. Just recently in The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative newspaper, talked about what Egypt’s opinion was about this. This is interesting, because the interview was done in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum, and the interview was made by Lally Weymouth, and she talked to Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Amre Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, our ally, a country that gets billions of dollars from us every year.
!CITE:
1998-7:22
So one would expect with all this money flowing into that country that they should quickly do exactly what we want. But this Foreign Minister was rather blunt: Egypt, a key member of the Gulf War coalition, is opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq. He said, We believe that military action should be avoided and there is room for political efforts. He said, If such action is taken, there will be considerable fallout in the Arab world, he warned. He said, We are not afraid of Saddam. He added that his country believes the crisis is a result of allegations that have not been proven. Yet, we are willing to go and do such a thing as to initiate this massive bombing attack on this country, and there has been nothing proven.
!CITE:
1998-7:23
Moussa also said that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons must be pursued, of course. But this requires cooperation with Iraq, not confrontation. Even our President admits that more weapons have been removed from Iraq since the war ended than which occurred with the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as 88,000 bombs that were dropped in the whole of World War II, and it did not accomplish the mission.
!CITE:
1998-7:24
So he is suggesting that it is just not worth the effort and it is not going to work. And he, of course, speaks for one of our allies.
!CITE:
1998-7:25
He says, “The whole Middle East is not comfortable with this, and I do not think there is support for such an option.
!CITE:
1998-7:26
All of us will face the consequence of such a military attack.” “All of us” means all of them, not the people here in the United States.
!CITE:
1998-7:27
He said 7 years ago there was an occupation and an apparent aggression. Today it is a question over inspections, so therefore he is arguing strenuously that we not do this. The people in the Middle East, he says, see a double standard. He is talking for the Arabs.
!CITE:
1998-7:28
The people in the Middle East see a double standard because the Israeli Government does not comply with U.N. Resolution 242, but we see no action. The U.S. is too strong on one and too soft on the other. The peace process is falling apart. We do know that the peace process with Israel and the Palestinians is not going smoothly, yet this is behind some of what is happening because they do not understand our policy.
!CITE:
1998-7:29
He goes on to say, “There is room for a political solution. Bear in mind the repercussions in the area. If the United States bombs, there will be Iraqi victims.” Then he asks, “What happens if the public sees a decisive move on the part of Iraq but not toward Israel? We have to take into consideration how the people who live near Iraq respond to something like this.”
!CITE:
1998-7:30
Now, Steven Rosenfeld, in the Washington Post, on February 6, also made comments about the Middle East and the failure of the Mideast policy. And I thought he had a very interesting comment, because he certainly would not be coming at this from the same viewpoint that I have.
!CITE:
1998-7:31
In his statement, this again is Rosenfeld in the Washington Post, he said, “There is a fatal flaw at the heart of Netanyahu’s policy. He is not prepared to address the Palestinians’ basic grievance. To think that Israel can humiliate the Palestinians politically and then reap the benefits of their security cooperation is foolish. It can’t happen.”
!CITE:
1998-7:32
Here we are being more involved in the Middle East process with Iraq in the hope that we are going to bring about peace.
!CITE:
1998-7:33
What about another close ally, an ally that we have had since World War II: Turkey. Turkey is not anxious for doing this. They do not want us to take the bombers and the troops out of Turkey. As a matter of fact, they are hesitant about this. This is an article from the Washington Times by Philip Smucker. He said, “Turkey’s growing fears of a clash in Iraq are based largely on what it sees as the ruinous aftermath of the Gulf War.”
!CITE:
1998-7:34
So Turkey is claiming that they are still suffering from the Gulf War.
!CITE:
1998-7:35
“The people,” and this is quoting from the Foreign Ministry Sermet Atacanli, “the people have started thinking that Turkey is somehow being punished,” a senior foreign official said. “We supported the war, but we are losing now.” So they are getting no benefits.
!CITE:
1998-7:36
He said that since the war, Turkey has suffered economic losses of some $35 billion stemming from the invigorated Kurdish uprising on the Iraqi border and the shutting down of the border trade, including the Iraqi oil exports through Turkey. They used to have trade; now they do not.
!CITE:
1998-7:37
We encouraged the Kurds to revolt and then stepped aside, so the Kurds are unhappy with the Americans because they were disillusioned as to what they thought they were supposed to be doing. “Turkey’s clear preference is for Iraq to regain control of its own Kurdish regions on the Turkish border and resume normal relations with Ankara.”
!CITE:
1998-7:38
Further quoting the foreign ministry of Turkey, “Iraq cannot exercise sovereignty over these regions, so there has become a power vacuum that has created an atmosphere in which terrorists operate freely.” It has taken quite some effort for Turkish forces to deal with this problem.
!CITE:
1998-7:39
What will happen if the bombs are relatively successful? More vacuum. More confusion. And more turmoil in that region.
!CITE:
1998-7:40
The military goals are questioned by even the best of our military people in this country, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what our military goals are. We do not have the troops there to invade and to take over Baghdad or to get rid of Hussein, but we have a lot of bombs and we have a lot of firepower. Yet, we are supposed to be intimidated and fearful of this military strength of Saddam Hussein. Yet even by our own intelligence reports, his strength is about one-half what it was before the Persian Gulf War started. So there is a little bit more fear-mongering there than I think is justified.
!CITE:
1998-7:41
But if we do not plan to send troops, we just agree to send bombs, then it will not get rid of Hussein. Why are we doing this? Because some people question this and some people respond and say, that may be correct, maybe we do not have the ability to inflict enough damage or to kill Hussein. And some here have even suggested that we assassinate him.
!CITE:
1998-7:42
Well, I am not going to defend Iraq. I am not going to defend Hussein. But I do have a responsibility here for us in the Congress to obey the law, and under our law, under the Constitution, and with a sense of morality, we do not go around assassinating dictators. I think history shows that we were involved in that in South Vietnam and it did not help us one bit.
!CITE:
1998-7:43
Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region.
!CITE:
1998-7:44
It is conceivable to me that it would be to Hussein’s benefit, and he probably is not worried that much, but I do not believe it is in our interest. I do not believe it is in the interest of the American people, the American taxpayers, the American fighter pilots, and certainly long-term interest in the Middle East. We will spend a lot of money doing it. That is one issue.
!CITE:
1998-7:45
We could end up having lives lost. We still have not solved all the problems and taken care of all the victims of the Persian Gulf War syndrome which numbers in the tens of thousands. Maybe we should be talking about that more than looking for more problems and a greater chance for a serious confrontation where lives were lost.
!CITE:
1998-7:46
The Iraqi and the Syrian views, according to this article, are very close and almost identical in rejecting a resort to force and American military threats. We do not get support there, and we should not ignore that.
!CITE:
1998-7:47
Just recently Schwarzkopf was interviewed on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press,” and he had some interesting comments to make, very objective, very military-oriented comments. He would not agree with me on my policy or the policy that I would advocate of neutrality and nonintervention and the pro-American policy. But he did have some warnings about the military operation.
!CITE:
1998-7:48
He said, “I do not think the bombing, I don’t think it will change his behavior at all. Saddam’s goal is to go down in history as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar by uniting the Arab world against the west. He may not mind a big strike if, after it, the United Nations lifts economic sanctions against Iraq.”
!CITE:
1998-7:49
I am afraid that this policy is going in the wrong direction, that we are going to have ramifications of it for years to come, and that we will and could have the same type of result as we had in Vietnam that took a decade for us to overcome.
!CITE:
1998-7:50
Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this bombing will accomplish what we should do. Charles Duefler, deputy chief of the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi inspection said, “Put bluntly, we do not really know what Iraq has.”
!CITE:
1998-7:51
That is at the heart of the problem. Here is our U.N. inspector admitting that they have no idea. So how can we prove that somebody does not have something if we do not know what he is supposed to have? So the odds of this military operation accomplishing very much are essentially slim to none.
!CITE:
1998-7:52
Charles Krauthammer, who would be probably in favor of doing a lot more than I would do, had some advice. He said, “Another short bombing campaign would simply send yet another message of American irresolution. It would arouse Arab complaints about American arrogance and aggression while doing nothing to decrease Saddam’s grip on power. Better to do nothing,” Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. These are not my views. They are warnings that we should not ignore.
!CITE:
1998-7:53
Richard Cohen from the Washington Post had some advice. He said, “Still military action is a perilous course. It will produce what is called ‘collateral damage,’ a fancy term for the accidental killing of civilians and possibly the unintentional destruction of a school or mosque.”
!CITE:
1998-7:54
We have heard of that before. “That, in turn,” he goes on to say, “will provoke protests in parts of the Arab world, Jordan probably and Egypt as well. In both countries the United States is already considered the protector of a recalcitrant Israeli Government. As for Israel itself, it can expect that Iraq will send missiles its way armed with chemical or biological weapons.”
!CITE:
1998-7:55
This is Richard Cohen warning us about some of the ramifications of what might happen.
!CITE:
1998-7:56
But during these past 8 years since the war has ended, there has been no signs that that is likely to happen. It is more likely to happen that some missile or some accident will occur that will spread this war from a neat little war to something much bigger than we are interested in dealing with.
!CITE:
1998-7:57
There are several other points that I would like to mention here. The one thing we cannot measure and we cannot anticipate are the accidents that happen. So often wars are caused by people being in the wrong place at wrong time, and then accidents happen and somebody gets killed, a ship is sunk, and we have to go to war.
!CITE:
1998-7:58
Other times some of these events may be staged. One individual suggested the possibility of a person like Saddam Hussein actually acting irrationally and doing something radical to his own people and then turning around and blaming the United States or Israel or something like that. So we are dealing with an individual that may well do this and for his specific purposes.
!CITE:
1998-7:59
But we would all be better off, not so much that we can anticipate exactly who we should help and who we should support; we have done too much of that. We help too often both sides of every war that has existed in the last 50 years, and we have pretended that we have known what is best for everybody. I think that is impossible.
!CITE:
1998-7:60
I think the responsibility of the Members of Congress here is to protect the national interest, to provide national security, to take care of national defense, to follow the rules that say, we should not go to war unless the war is declared. If we go to war, we go to war to fight and win the war. But we do not go to war because we like one country over another country and we want to support them.
!CITE:
1998-7:61
We literally support both sides in the Middle East, and it is a balancing act and, quite frankly, both sides right now seem to be a little bit unhappy with us. So the policy has not been working; we have not been able to achieve what we think we are able to do. But we must be very cautious on what we are doing here in the next few weeks.
!CITE:
1998-7:62
People say, well, we have to do it because Hussein has so much of this firepower, he has all of these weapons of mass destruction. It was just recently reported by U.S. intelligence that there are 20 nations now who are working on and producing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran and Syria. So why do we not go in there and check them out too?
!CITE:
1998-7:63
Why is it that we have no more concern about our national security concern about China? I think China can pose a national threat. I do not think we should be doing it to China. I do not think we should be looking to find out what kind of weapons they have. We know they sell weapons to Iraq. And we know they are a very capable nation when it comes to military. But what do we do with China? We give them foreign aid. They are one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the whole world.
!CITE:
1998-7:64
So we do not apply the rules to all the countries the same, and we get narrowed in on one item and we get distracted from many of the facts that I think are so important. Some people believe that it is conceivable that the oil is even very important in this issue as well.
!CITE:
1998-7:65
We obviously knew the oil was important in the Persian Gulf War because it was said that we were going over there to protect our oil. Of course, it was Iraqi oil but some people believe sincerely that keeping this Iraqi oil off the market helps keep the prices higher and they do not need that to happen.
!CITE:
1998-7:66
As a matter of fact, it was in the Wall Street Journal today that that was further suggested. It said: Equally important the U.S. must terminate illegal oil exports from the Iraqi port of Basra.
!CITE:
1998-7:67
There, submerged barges depart daily for Iran, which sells the oil and, after a hefty rake-off, returns the proceeds to fund Saddam. So there are sales and there might be people that are looking at this mainly as a financial thing dealing with oil.
!CITE:
1998-7:68
The odds now of us being able to stop this bombing I think are pretty slim. I think that is rather sad because it looks like there will be a resolution that will come to the floor. There probably will not be a chance for a lot of debate. It will come up under suspension possibly and yet in the words may be toned down a little bit.
!CITE:
1998-7:69
It might not be identical to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. But all I would like to do is point out to my colleagues that this is more important than it appears, and we should not be so glib as to give this authority, to give the cover for the President to say, well, the Congress said it was okay. I do not think the Congress should say it is okay, because I think it is the wrong thing to do. And I think it could lead to so many, so many more problems.
!CITE:
1998-7:70
So we have a responsibility. If the responsibility is that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national security, we should be more honest with the American people. We should tell them what the problem is. We should have a resolution, a declaration of war.
!CITE:
1998-7:71
Obviously, that would not pass but it looks like it will not be difficult to pass a resolution that will condone and give sanction to whatever the President does regardless of all the military arguments against it.
!CITE:
1998-7:72
So I see this as really a sad time for us and not one that we should be proud of. I do know that the two weakest arguments I can present here would be that of a moral argument, that wars ought to be fought only for defense and for national security. I have been told that is too old-fashioned and we must police the world, and we have the obligation. We are the only superpower.
!CITE:
1998-7:73
Well, I do not think that is a legitimate argument. I do have a lot of reservation that we are so anxious to go along with getting authority elsewhere, and that is through the United Nations. When the Persian Gulf War was started, getting ready to start, it was said that we did not need the Congress to approve this because the authority came from the United Nations resolution.
!CITE:
1998-7:74
Well, that to me is the wrong way to go. If we are involved in internationalism, where international financing now is influencing our presidential election, if international finances demand that we take more money from the American taxpayers and bail out southeast Asian countries through the IMF and that we are willing to have our young men and women be exposed to war conditions and to allow them to go to war mainly under a U.N. resolution and a token endorsement by the Congress, I think this is the wrong way to go.
!CITE:
1998-7:75
I do realize that we have been doing it this way for 40 or 50 years. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the American people are all that happy about it. I have not yet had anybody in my district come up to me and start saying, RON, I want you to get up there and start voting. I want to see those bombs flying.
!CITE:
1998-7:76
As a matter of fact, I have had a lot of them come and say, why are you guys up there thinking about going to war? I have had a lot of people talk about that. So we should not do this carelessly and casually.
!CITE:
1998-7:77
There is no reason in the world why we cannot be willing to look at the rule of law. The rule of law is very clear. We do not have the moral authority to do this. This is, we must recognize, this is an act of war.
!CITE:
1998-7:78
When the resolution comes up to the floor, no matter how watered down it is, I think everybody should think very seriously about it and not be careless about it, not wait until a decade goes by and 50,000 men are killed. I think that is the wrong way to do it.
!CITE:
1998-7:79
There is nothing wrong with a pro- American foreign policy, one of nonintervention, one where we are neutral. That was our tradition for more than 100 years. It stood out in George Washington’s farewell address, talk about nonentangling alliances. These entangling alliances and our willingness to get involved has not been kind to us in the 20th century. So we should really consider the option of a foreign policy that means that we should be friends with all.
!CITE:
1998-7:80
People will immediately say that is isolationism. Even if you are not for the IMF bailout, this argument really bewilders me. If you are not for the $18 billion bailout of the IMF, you are an isolationist. You can be for free trade and get rid of all the tariffs and do everything else, but if you are not willing to give your competitors more money and bail them out and bail out the banks, you are an isolationist. You are not for free trade. It is complete nonsense. There is nothing wrong with isolating our military forces.
!CITE:
1998-7:81
We do not have to be the policemen of the world. We have not done a good job and the world is not safer today because of our willingness to do this. One act leads to the next one. We are still fighting the Persian Gulf War, and it sounds to me like we are losing our allies. We must take this under serious advisement. We must not be too anxious to go and do something that we could be very sorry for.
!CITE:
1998-7:82
I know that people do not like this statement I am going to be making to be made, but I think there should be a consideration for it. So often Members here are quite willing to vote to put ourselves and our men in harm’s way that could lead to a serious confrontation with many deaths. But if those individuals who claim that it would be best to assassinate Saddam Hussein or put land troops on there, I wonder if they would be willing to be the first ones on the beachhead. That really is the question. That is a fair statement.
!CITE:
1998-7:83
If you are willing to go yourself, if you are willing to send your child, then it is more legitimate to vote casually and carelessly to go marching off with acts of war. But if that individual who is getting ready to vote, if he himself or she herself is not willing to land on that beach and risk their lives, they should think a second time.
!CITE:
1998-7:84
In a war for national defense, if this country is threatened, every one of us should participate in it. We should and we can. We could do it our way, to participate in the defense of this country. But once it is being involved in a casual and a careless manner with not knowing what the goals are, not knowing what victory means, not fighting to win, this can only lead to bigger problems.
!CITE:
1998-7:85
This is the time to reassess it. I know time is running short. Everybody is afraid of losing face. Some people say, well, how do we back off and we cannot let Saddam Hussein lose face, and what about our own politicians who have been saying that we must do something. They will lose face. Would that not be the worst reason in the world to do this, because they are afraid of losing face because we threatened them? If it is the wrong thing to do, we should not do it. And there seems to me to be no direct benefit to the American people, certainly no benefit to the American taxpayer, certainly no benefit to peace in the Middle East. It is more likely to cause more turmoil. It is more likely to unify the Islamic fundamentalists like they have never been unified before.
!CITE:
1998-7:86
So what we are doing here is very serious business. Unfortunately, it looks like it is going to happen and it looks like there will be one or two or three or four of us that will say, go slow, do not do this, let us question this. But unfortunately, the only significant criticism we have had of the policy has been, do more faster.
!CITE:
1998-7:87
We do not need to do more faster. We need to do less quicker, much less quicker. Nothing has been happening in the last few years, the last few weeks. Does President Clinton need to bomb over the weekend or next week or two weeks from now? I say absolutely not. There is no need for this.
!CITE:
1998-7:88
Saddam is weaker than he used to be. He could be stronger after this is finished. So we must be cautious. We must take our time and think about this before we go off and make this declaration. It sounds like a lot of fun. We have a lot of bombers. We have a lot of equipment that we have to test, and we can go over there and see if the B–1 and the stealth bombers will work a little bit better than they have in the past. But this is not a game. This is not a game. This is serious business.
!CITE:
1998-7:89
One item like this, one event like this can lead to something else, and that is what we have to be cautious about. We cannot assume that, yes, we can bomb for a day or two or three or four and the stronger the rhetoric the more damage we are going to do. We need less rhetoric. We as a Nation have on occasion been the initiators of peace talks. We encourage the two groups in the Middle East, the Israelis and the Palestinians. We bring them to our country. We ask them to sit down and talk. Please talk before you kill each other. We go to the Protestants and we go to the Catholics and we say, please talk, do not kill each other. Why do we not talk more to Hussein? He is willing to.
!CITE:
1998-7:90
I know, I mean you have to take his word with a grain of salt, but would it not be better to sit down across the table and at least talk rather than pursue a course that, a military course that may be more harmful?
!CITE:
1998-7:91
If this would be a guarantee that it would get a lot better and that we would solve a lot of problems, maybe we could consider it. But even those who advocate this do not claim they know when the end stage is, what the ultimate goal is, and that they would expect success. They are not expecting this. They just want to bomb, bomb people. Innocent people will die. Those pictures will be on television.
!CITE:
1998-7:92
And I, quite frankly, do not believe the polls that most Americans want us to do this. I go home; I talk to a lot of my constituents. I do not find them coming and saying, do this. They do not even understand, the people who come and talk to me, they ask me what is going on up there. Why are they getting ready to do this?
!CITE:
1998-7:93
I mean, most people in this country cannot even find where Iraq is on the map. I mean, they are not that concerned about it. And yet all we would have to do is have one ship go down and have loss of life and then all of a sudden, then do we turn tail? Then is it that we do not lose face after we lose 1,000 men by some accident or some freakish thing happening?
!CITE:
1998-7:94
Sure, we will lose more face then. But we can save face if we do what is right, explain what we are doing and be open to negotiations. There is nothing wrong with that. I mean, there has not been a border crossing.
!CITE:
1998-7:95
The other thing is it would be nice if we had a policy in this country, a foreign policy that had a little bit of consistency. I have been made fun of at one time on the House floor for being consistent and wanting to be consistent.
!CITE:
1998-7:96
I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with being consistent. I think there should be a challenge on my ideas or our ideas. We should challenge ideas. But if you want to be consistent, if they are the right ideas, you should be consistent. But we talk about this horrible country, I am not defending the country and I am not defending Hussein, but we criticize him as an individual who invaded another country. I wonder what they are talking about.
!CITE:
1998-7:97
I wonder if they are talking about when he invaded Iran with our encouragement and our money and our support. Is that what they are talking about? Or are they talking about the other invasion that we did not like because it was a threat to western oil? I think that might be the case.
!CITE:
1998-7:98
So they talk about poison gas. Yes, there is no doubt about it. I think the evidence is out that he has used poison gas against his own people. Horrible, killed a lot of people. But never against another country, which means the line could be drawn by if he had ever used these weapons. We cannot investigate 20 countries. We cannot investigate North Korea. We cannot investigate China. Why do we have this obsession with investigating this country? But poison gases, under international agreements, we are not supposed to use poison gases.
!CITE:
1998-7:99
Poison gases, we used them, not against a foreign power but we used them against our own people. No, we did not have a mass killing but those families understood it. Over 100, more than 100, 150 people were gassed with gas that was illegal, according to our own agreements, and we used them at Waco.
!CITE:
1998-7:100
So at one time we were an ally of a country, at the same time he is using poison gas and invading another country and then, when he invades the wrong country, then we give him trouble.
!CITE:
1998-7:101
For many, many years, Noriega was our ally, and he was no angel when he was our ally. He received money from the CIA, but all of a sudden he wanted to be his own drug lord. He did not want to be beholding to our CIA, so we had to do something about him.
!CITE:
1998-7:102
There is nothing wrong with a foreign policy that is consistent based on a moral principle and on our Constitution. That means that the responsibility of the U.S. Congress is to provide for a strong national defense. There is nothing wrong with being friends with everybody who is willing to be friends with us. There is nothing wrong with trading with as many people that will trade with us, and there is nothing wrong with working for as low tariffs as possible.
!CITE:
1998-7:103
There is no reason why we should not consider at least selling some food and medicine to Castro. We have had a confrontation with Castro now for 40 years, and it has served him well because his socialism and his communism was an absolute failure. But he always had a scapegoat. It was the Americans. It was the Americans because they boycotted and they would not trade and, therefore, that was the reason they suffered. So it served him well.
!CITE:
1998-7:104
I would think that being willing to talk with people, if we believe in our system, if we believe that liberty is something to be proud of and that that works, I am convinced that it is better to have set an example to talk with people, trade with people, and go back and forth as freely as possible and we will spread our message much better than we ever will with bombs.
!CITE:
1998-7:105
How many bombs did we drop in South Vietnam? How many men were lost on our side? How many people were lost on the other side? How many innocent people were lost? So the war ends, after a decade. After a decade of misery in this country where we literally had to turn on our own people to suppress the demonstrations. But today I have friends who are doing business in South Vietnam, making money over there, which means that trade and talk works. They are becoming more Westernized.
!CITE:
1998-7:106
This whole approach of militancy, believing that we can force our way on other people, will not and cannot work. Matter of fact, the few quotes that I used here earlier are indicating that we are doing precisely the wrong thing; that we are further antagonizing not only our so-called enemies, but we are further antagonizing our allies. So if there is no uniformity of opinion of the neighbors, of Iraq, that we should be doing this, if we will not listen to the moral, if we will not listen to the constitutional issue, we should listen to the practical issue. His neighbors do not want us to do it.
!CITE:
1998-7:107
And what are we going to prove? We should not do it. We should reassess this. We should decide quietly and calmly and deliberately in this body that quite possibly the move toward internationalism, abiding by the U.N. resolutions, paying through the nose to the IMF to bail out the special interests, never helping the poor but always helping the rich, encouraging a system that encourages foreign countries to come in and buy influence, should be challenged. We should change it.
!CITE:
1998-7:108
And we do not have to be isolationists. We can be more open and more willing to trade and talk with people and we will have a greater chance of peace and prosperity. That is our purpose. Our purpose is to protect liberty. And we do not protect American liberty by jeopardizing their liberty and the wealth of this country by getting involved when we should not be involved.
!CITE:
1998-7:109
The world is a rough enough place already, and there will continue to be the hot spots of the world, but I am totally convinced that a policy of American intervention overseas, subjecting other nations to our will, trying to be friends to both sides at all times, subsidizing both sides and then trying this balancing act that never works, this is not going to work either. It did not work in the 1980s when we were closely allied and subsidizing Hussein and it will not work now when we are trying to bomb him.
!CITE:
1998-7:110
Neither will it work for us to not have somewhat of a consistent policy to ignore the other countries that are doing the very same thing at the same time the real threat possibly could be a country like China. And what do we do? We give them billions and billions of dollars of subsidies.
!CITE:
1998-7:111
There is nothing wrong with a consistent defense of a pro-America foreign policy. People will say, well, the world is different and we have to be involved. That is exactly the reason that we ought to be less aggressive. That is exactly the reason why we ought to take our own counsel and not do these things. Because we live in an age where communications are much more rapid. The weapons are much worse. There is every reason in the world to do less of this, not more of it.
!CITE:
1998-7:112
But none of this could happen. We could never move in this direction unless we asked a simple question: What really is the role of our government? Is the role of our government to perpetuate a welfare-warfare state to take care of the large special interests who benefit from this by building weapons and buying and selling oil? No, the purpose cannot be that.
!CITE:
1998-7:113
The welfare-warfare state does not work. The welfare for poor is well-motivated; it is intended to help people, but it never helps them. They become an impoverished, dependent class. And we are on the verge of bankruptcy, no matter what we hear about the balanced budget. The national debt is going up by nearly $200 billion a year and it cannot be sustained. So this whole nonsense of a balanced budget and trying to figure out where to spend the excess is nonsense. It just encourages people to take over more of the responsibilities that should be with the American people.
!CITE:
1998-7:114
We here in the Congress should be talking about defending this country, providing national security, providing for a strong currency, not deliberately distorting the currency. We should be protecting private property rights and making sure that there is no incentive for the special interests of this country to come and buy their influence up here.
!CITE:
1998-7:115
We do not need any fancy campaign reform laws. There is no need for those. We need to eliminate the ability of the Congress to pass out favors. I do not get any PAC money because there is no attempt to come and ask me to do special favors for anybody. I get a lot of donations from people who want liberty. They want to be left alone, and they know, they know that they can take care of themselves.
!CITE:
1998-7:116
Now, this point will not be proven until the welfare state crumbles, and it may well crumble in the next decade. The Soviet system crumbled rather suddenly. We cannot afford to continue to do this, but we must be cautious not to allow the corporate state and the militant attitude that we have with our policy to rule. We have to decide here in this country, as well as in this body, what we want from our government and what kind of a government we want.
!CITE:
1998-7:117
We got off from the right track with the founders of this country. They wrote a good document and that document was designed for this purpose, for the protection of liberty. We have gone a long way from that, until now we have the nanny state that we cannot even plow our gardens without umpteen number of permits from the Federal Government. So our government is too big, it is too massive, and we have undermined the very concept of liberty.
!CITE:
1998-7:118
Foreign policy is very important because it is under the conditions of war; it is under the condition of foreign confrontation that people are so willing to give up their liberties at home because of the fear. We should avoid unnecessary confrontations overseas and we should concentrate on bettering the people here in this country, and it can best be done by guaranteeing property rights, free markets, sound money, and a sensible approach to our foreign policy.
!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn
!DATE:
11 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o’clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 10 a.m.
!TITLE:
Iraq
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapons technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq?
!CITE:
1998-9:2
Instead, though, we give foreign aid to both China and to Russia, so indirectly we are subsidizing the very weapons that we are trying to eliminate.
!CITE:
1998-9:3
I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.
!CITE:
1998-9:4
Bombing will solve nothing. It will open up a can of worms. We should not condone it. We should not endorse it. We should not encourage it.
!CITE:
1998-9:5
Please think carefully before we permit our President to pursue this war adventure.
!TITLE:
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national identification number by which the federal government can more easily monitor private information regarding American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-10:2
The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official.
!CITE:
1998-10:3
Now Congress is preparing to authorize the use of the Social Security number to verify citizenship for purposes of voting. Opponents of this bill are right to point out that, whatever protections are written in this bill, allowing states to force citizens to present a Social Security number before they can vote will require the augmentation of a national data base — similar to those created in the Welfare Reform and the Immigration Bills of 1996.
!CITE:
1998-10:4
Mr. Speaker, clearly we are heading for the day when American citizens cannot work, go to school, have a child, or even exercise their right to vote without presenting what, in effect, is quickly becoming a national I.D. card.
!CITE:
1998-10:5
National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I’m sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen’s papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their “papers” containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting.
!CITE:
1998-10:6
In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.
!TITLE:
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to just urge some caution on what we do.
!CITE:
1998-11:2
I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually.
!CITE:
1998-11:3
Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.
!CITE:
1998-11:4
We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war continues.
!CITE:
1998-11:5
It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that.
!CITE:
1998-11:6
Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable under our system of law, and I call my colleagues’ attention to this because this is very serious.
!CITE:
1998-11:7
I do not care more about military than those who would bomb; they have just as much concern as I have. But I am concerned about the rule of law, and obviously, I am concerned about consequences that are unforeseen, and there could be many.
!CITE:
1998-11:8
I am worried that we do not have allied support, and everybody recognizes that now. There are very few neighbors of Saddam Hussein who are very anxious for us to do this. So that should cause some reservation.
!CITE:
1998-11:9
Also the military strategy here is questionable. It is actually what are we going to try to achieve? Are we going to try to literally destroy all the weapons, or are we going to try to destroy him? Are we just going to bomb people where maybe innocent people will be killed? The long-term military strategy has not been spelled out, and I have a concern for that.
!CITE:
1998-11:10
Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. Government and the British Government participated and they have the documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what we do.
!CITE:
1998-11:11
Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary.
!CITE:
1998-11:12
The other side of the aisle suggests that we have a full debate and a resolution in 10 days after we come back. That certainly makes a lot of sense to me. I think at this point to condone and endorse and encourage the President to do something at this late hour when there is essentially no one here in the Chamber, I do not think this is a good way to casually step into something that could be rather dangerous. The resolutions that have been talked about ironically are quite similar to the resolution passed in the 1960s that got us further involved in Vietnam.
!CITE:
1998-11:13
So, in all sincerity, I come here asking all Members to be cautious and for the President not to move too hastily.
!TITLE:
We Encouraged Saddam Hussein
!DATE:
12 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!CITE:
1998-12:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to make two points. The other gentleman from California makes a good point about the character of Saddam Hussein, but my colleagues have to remember and have to realize that he was a close ally that we encouraged for 8 years during the 1980s, so we helped build him up, which contradicts this whole policy. I would like to see a more consistent policy.
!CITE:
1998-12:3
Then the gentleman brings up the subject: Yes, he may be in the business of developing weapons, but he has gotten help from China and Russia, and possibly from Britain and the United States, and 20 other nations are doing the same thing. So if we are interested in stopping these weapons, we better attack 20 countries. So we have a job on our hands.
!TITLE:
Millennium Bug
!DATE:
24 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this Legislation, H.R. 3116, will not solve the Year 2000 problem. Giving some financial regulators “statutory parity” with other regulators will not solve the problem. Everyone will have to take responsibility to secure that their own systems will be Year 2000-compliant. We must hope that the government will be as diligent in its compliance with the so-called Millennium Bug problem as it want the private sector to be.
!CITE:
1998-13:2
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported unfavorably on the FDIC’s readiness. Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, US Senate, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems, testified on February 10, 1998 (Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank’s Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant) that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has not met its own “y2k-compliant” standards. According to GAO, the FDIC has not yet completed the assessment phase of the remediation process, despite its own standard that banks under the agency’s supervision should have completed this phase by the end of the third quarter of 1997.
!CITE:
1998-13:3
The bill requires the regulators to provide information (seminars, etc.), make available to financial institutions model approaches to address the Year 2000 problem, and to give the regulators examination authority to examine third party service provides under contract to federally-insured institutions.
!CITE:
1998-13:4
James Mills, of NAFCU, testified before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, “Historically, the role of providing education and training is one best performed by the private sector, namely trade associations and industry-related organizations . . . Rather than require federal agencies to offer seminars, perhaps any legislative efforts should require federal agencies to participate in such programs or make it advisable and permissible to participate.” NAFCU believes that the focus of H.R. 3116 should be strictly limited to ensuring compliance. In its present form, H.R. 3116 contains a broad and permanent expansion of NCUA’s examination and regulatory authority . . . Legitimate questions may be raised as to whether, absent the year 2000 issue, NCUA, as a federal financial regulatory agency, should have the authority not just to examine but to actually regulate private business enterprises incorporated under the laws of various states. The authority given to NCUA in H.R. 3116, is not limited to the examination and regulation of credit unions, but would allow NCUA to examine and regulate third-party businesses, vendors and outside providers. Do the members of the Committee intend to give NCUA authority to regulate private entities?”
!CITE:
1998-13:5
Ellen Seidman, Director OTS, added, “Clearly, the primary responsibility and liability for Year 2000 compliance rests with the regulated institutions themselves, including those that rely on service providers . . . Some service providers, however, have been resistant to these contractual provisions and, as a result, thrifts have been hindered in their ability to contract for services.”
!CITE:
1998-13:6
This bill raises legal liability questions that may actually thwart a financial institution’s ability to address the y2k problem more effectively. Introducing legislation on the y2k issue would only give more people more incentive to sue companies which are not compliant. How does the bill define “year 2000 compliance”? It isn’t clear. Such ambiguity only causes further problems. The real problem with y2k isn’t the computers, its the people. More legislation will only compound the problem.
!CITE:
1998-13:7
Year 2000 issues with computers cause numerous headaches but by no means unsolvable problems. Solutions exist, and since we do exist in a relatively free market, we should allow it to work.
!TITLE:
Opposing Federal Gun Control
!DATE:
24 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states.
!CITE:
1998-14:2
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.
!CITE:
1998-14:3
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-14:4
For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government’s attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had a chance to pick a topic for my special order today, I would call it the folly of foreign intervention.
!CITE:
1998-15:2
We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-15:3
This, I think, is beneficial. At least it gives both sides more time to stop and think and talk before more bombs are dropped.
!CITE:
1998-15:4
Before we left about 10 days ago from the Congress, I think many Members and much of the Nation thought that within a short period of time, within a week or so, there would be additional bombing by the Americans over Baghdad.
!CITE:
1998-15:5
There were polls out at that time that said 70 percent of the American people endorsed this move, something that I questioned and of course I question the legitimacy of dealing with policy by measuring polls, anyway. I think we should do what is right, not try to decide what is right by the polls. But in this circumstance, I think the polls must have been very, very misleading.
!CITE:
1998-15:6
We heard a gentleman earlier this evening from North Dakota mention when he was at home essentially nobody was telling him that they were in favor of the war. I think most Members of Congress on this past week on visiting home had the same message. Certainly there was a very loud message in Columbus at a town hall meeting. It was written off by those who wanted to go to war and wanted to drop the bombs by saying, well, no, this was just a very noisy bunch of hippies who are opposed to the war. There are a lot of people in this country who are opposed to the war and they are not hippies. I think to discredit people who oppose going and participating in an act of war and try to discredit them by saying that they belong to a hippie generation, I think they are going to lose out in the credibility argument in this regards.
!CITE:
1998-15:7
This debate has been going on for quite a few months. It looks like it is not resolved. Although there has been an agreement, it is far from a victory for either side. It is somewhat ironic about how this has come about, because it seems that those of us who have been urging great caution have been satisfied with at least a temporary solution, yet we are not entirely satisfied at all with the dependency on the effort by the United States enforcing U.N. resolutions. In this case I think what we must do is reassess the entire policy because it is policy that gets us into trouble.
!CITE:
1998-15:8
It is in this one instance. We did not just invent foreign interventionism in foreign policy. This has been going on for a long time. The worst and the first egregious example, of course, was in Korea where we went to war under the U.N. banner and was the first war we did not win. Yet we continue with this same policy throughout the world. Hardly can we be proud of what happened in Vietnam. It seems like we are having a lot more success getting along with the Vietnamese people as we trade with them rather than fight with them.
!CITE:
1998-15:9
There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used.
!CITE:
1998-15:10
So all of a sudden it is hard to understand why our policy changes. But once we embark on a policy of intervention and it is arbitrary, we intervene when we please or when it seems to help, it seems then that we can be on either side of any issue anytime, and so often we are on both sides of many wars. This does not serve us well. A policy design that is said to be pro-American and in defense of this country where we follow the rules and follow the laws and we do not get involved in war without a declaration by the Congress, I think it would be very healthy not only for us as Americans but it would be very healthy for the world as a whole.
!CITE:
1998-15:11
I am very pleased that there has been at least a pause here, although our troops will be maintained there and they are waiting to see if there is some other excuse that we can go in there and resume the bombing. But the whole notion that we are going to bring Hussein to his knees without the cost of many American lives I think is naive, because nobody has proposed that we go in and invade the country. There have been proposals that we just assassinate Hussein, which is illegal. At least that is acknowledged that this is an illegal act, to go in and kill another leader, although we have been involved in that too. But many people have argued that this should be our policy now, and that is to topple Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-15:12
But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-15:13
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN).
!TITLE:
What Did Congressman Duncan’s Constituents Want
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-16:1
Mr. PAUL. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. He was just home in his district, he traveled and talked to quite a few of his constituents. Did he get a sentiment from his district on what they want?
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-17:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us.
!CITE:
1998-17:2
I have always lamented the fact that we so often are anxious to close down our bases here within the United States because we are always looking for the next monster to slay outside of the country, so we build air bases in places like Saudi Arabia. Then when the time comes that our leaders think that it is necessary to pursue a war policy in the region, they do not even allow us to use the bases. I think that is so often money down the drain. It is estimated now that we have probably pumped in $7 billion into Bosnia and that is continuing. Our President is saying now that that is open-ended, there is no date to bring those troops back. We have already spent probably a half a billion additional dollars these last several weeks just beefing up the troops in the Persian Gulf.
!CITE:
1998-17:3
The funds will not be endless. I have too many calls from so many in my district who serve in the military, and their complaint is that they do not have enough funds to adequately train. We are wasting money in the wrong places, getting ourselves into more trouble than we need to. At the same time we detract from spending the money where we should in training our personnel the way they should be. I think this is not so much a tactical decision made by management as much as it is a policy decision on what our foreign policy ought to be.
!CITE:
1998-17:4
If we continue to believe that we can police the whole world and provide security and right every wrong, I think it will lead us to our bankruptcy, and just as was mentioned earlier, we receive the same kind of grief when we pretend that we can impose economic conditions on other countries.
!CITE:
1998-17:5
We, as a wealthy Nation, are expected to bail out other countries who have overextended themselves and they get into trouble. At the same time, we put economic rules and regulations on them and resentments are turned back toward us. The Arabs in the Middle East do not understand our foreign policy because there have been numerous U.N. resolutions, but it is only this one particular resolution that we have felt so compelled to enforce.
!CITE:
1998-17:6
And the real irony of all this is that first we use the United Nations as the excuse to go in. Then, the United Nations gets a little weak on their mandates, and they themselves do not want to go in. So it is a U.N. resolution that we try to enforce, and then when it is shown that it is not a good resolution, the U.N. then backs away from it. So there is no unanimous opinion in the U.N., I think further proving that this is a poor way to do foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-17:7
And those who would like to do more bombing and pursue this even more aggressively tend to agree with that. They do not like the idea that we have turned over our foreign policy making to an international body like the United Nations.
!CITE:
1998-17:8
So this, to me, is a really good time to make us stop and think should we do this? I certainly think that our foreign policy in the interests of the United States should be determined by us here in the Congress, and then some will argue, well, it is not up to Congress to deal in foreign policy. That is up to a President. But that is not what is in the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-17:9
As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us.
!CITE:
1998-17:10
And this is the reason why I have introduced a resolution that would say that we do have the authority to withdraw the funds from pursuing this bombing, and there is another resolution that the gentleman from Maryland will mention here shortly dealing with that same subject, because we do have the responsibility, and we, especially in the House, are closest to the people.
!CITE:
1998-17:11
We have to be up for reelection every 2 years, and if we listen to the polls that say that 70 percent of the American people want this war, at the same time if we fail to go home and talk to our people and find out that most Americans do not want this war and there is no good argument for it.
!CITE:
1998-17:12
The whole idea that we can immediately go over there and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction when we helped build the weapons up in the first place, and if we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not more concerned about the 25,000 nuclear warheads that have fallen into unknown hands since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Our allies in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and we have China to worry about. What did we do with China? We give them more foreign aid.
!CITE:
1998-17:13
So there is no consistent argument that we can put up that all of a sudden Saddam Hussein is the only threat to world peace and it is in our interest to go in there and take him out. It just does not add up. If he really was a threat, you would think his neighbors would be the most frightened about this, and yet the neighbors are urging us not to do it. They are urging us to take our time, back off and wait and see what happens.
!CITE:
1998-17:14
We, in the United States, so often are involved in conflicts around the world, and one of the things that we urge so many to do is sit down and talk to each other. We ask the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland to talk, we ask the Croats and the Serbs to talk, we ask the Jews and the Arabs to talk; why is it that we cannot do more talking with Saddam Hussein? Instead, we impose sanctions on him which does nothing to him, solidifies his support, rallies the Islamic fundamentalists while we kill babies. There is now a U.N. report that shows that since the sanctions, well over a half a million children died from starvation and lack of medicines that we denied them.
!CITE:
1998-17:15
So I think that there is every reason in the world for us to reassess this policy. There is a much more sensible policy. What we need is more time right now. There is no urgency about this. We did the bombing in the early 1990s, and by the way, I can see this as a continuation of that single war. But since that time with inspections, even the President claims that they have gotten rid of more weapons since the war ended than occurred with the war.
!CITE:
1998-17:16
So if there is no military victory in sight by bombing and only great danger, what is the purpose? Why can we not continue with more negotiations and more inspections? And they say, well, we cannot trust Hussein. Well, that may be true. But looking at it objectively when we finished in 1991 our policy was to encourage the Kurds and the Shiites to rebel, and we implied that we would be there, and what happened? We were not there. Thousands and thousands of Shiites and Kurds were just wiped out because we misled them, similar to our promises that we made to the Cubans in the early 1960s.
!CITE:
1998-17:17
So we do not gain the respect of the world by, one, saying, well, we cannot trust anything he says. Of course not, we cannot trust it. But we have to be realistic, and can they trust us, as well, because our record is not perfectly clean.
!CITE:
1998-17:18
I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BARTLETT).
!TITLE:
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-18:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman very much for participating.
!CITE:
1998-18:2
Early on, I talked about a policy of nonintervention; and I would like to talk a little bit more about that. Because some might construe that if you have a policy of nonintervention, it means you do not care; and that is not the case. Because we can care a whole lot.
!CITE:
1998-18:3
There are two very important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of nonintervention, they do it. One, we believe in the rule of law and we should do it very cautiously, and that is what we are bound by here in the Congress. So that is very important.
!CITE:
1998-18:4
The other one is a practical reason, and that is that there is not very good evidence that our intervention does much good. We do not see that intervention in Somalia has really solved the problems there, and we left there in a hurry.
!CITE:
1998-18:5
We have spent a lot of money in Bosnia and the other places. So the evidence is not very good that intervention is involved, certainly the most abhorrent type of intervention, which is the eager and aggressive and not-well-thought-out military intervention. That is obviously the very worst.
!CITE:
1998-18:6
I would argue that even the policy of neutrality and friendship and trade with people, regardless of the enemy, would be the best.
!CITE:
1998-18:7
Of course, if you are involved in a war or there is an avowed enemy, declared enemy, that is a different story. For the most part, since World War II, we have not used those terms, we have not had declared words, we have only had “police actions,” and, therefore, we are working in a never-never limbo that nobody can well define.
!CITE:
1998-18:8
I think it is much better that we define the process and that everybody understands it.
!CITE:
1998-18:9
I would like to go ahead and close with a brief summary of what we have been trying to do here today. It was mentioned earlier, and I want to reemphasize it, something that has not been talked about a whole lot over this issue, has been the issue of oil. It is oil interests, money involved.
!CITE:
1998-18:10
As I stated earlier, we were allies with Hussein when we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran, and yet, at the same time, the taking over of the Kuwait oil fields was something that we could not stand, even though there has not been a full debate over that argument. We have heard only the one side of that, who drew the lines and for what reason the lines were drawn there and whose oil was being drilled. There is a major debate there that should be fully aired before we say that it is the fault of only one.
!CITE:
1998-18:11
But it is not so much that it was the crossing of borders. I do believe that oil interests and the huge very, very important oil fields of Iraq and what it might mean to the price of oil if they came on has a whole lot to do with this.
!CITE:
1998-18:12
We did not worry about the Hutus and the Tutus in Africa. A lot of killing was going on there; 1 million people were being killed. Where was our compassion? Where was our compassion in the killing fields of Cambodia? We did not express the same compassion that we seem to express as soon as oil is involved.
!CITE:
1998-18:13
We cannot let them get away with the repetition of “we got to get the weapons of mass destruction.” Of course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I would say we have done rather well getting rid of the weapons there. They are a much weaker nation militarily than they were 10 years ago, and those kind of weapons are around the world, so that, as far as I am concerned, is a weak argument.
!CITE:
1998-18:14
Another subject that is not mentioned very often, but the prime minister of Israel just recently implied that, hopefully, we will pursue this policy of going in there and trying to topple this regime. I can understand their concerns, but I also understand the concerns of the American taxpayers and the expense of the American lives that might be involved. So I can argue my case.
!CITE:
1998-18:15
But even taking it from an Israeli point of view, I do not know how they can be sure it is in their best interests to go over there and stir things up. They are more likely to be bombed with a terrorist bomb if we go in there and start bombing Iraq. If we do, Israel will not stand by as they did once before. They told us so.
!CITE:
1998-18:16
So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in.
!CITE:
1998-18:17
Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy.
!CITE:
1998-18:18
It is not difficult for me to come down on the side of arguing for peace. Peace is what we should be for. That does not mean you give up your military, but you use your military more wisely than we have over the past 30 or 40 years. You use it for national defense.
!CITE:
1998-18:19
Today we have a powerful military force, but a lot of people do not think we are as strong in defense as we used to be. So, yes, we are stronger than others, but if we have a failed and a flawed policy and a military that has been weakened, then we are looking for trouble.
!CITE:
1998-18:20
So even the practical arguments call for restraint and a sensible approach, for debate and negotiations. It is for this reason I think for the moment we can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to Iraq and came back with something that is at least negotiable, and that the American people will think about and talk about. Hopefully this will lead not only to peace immediately in this area, but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion about the wisdom of a foreign policy of continued perpetual interventionism and involvement in the internal affairs of other nations.
!CITE:
1998-18:21
If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military-industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.
!TITLE:
Access To Energy
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, recently, a national newsletter focusing on science, technology and energy policy highlighted the small town of Seadrift, Texas located in my District.
!CITE:
1998-19:2
While focusing on Seadrift this newsletter article (Access to Energy) went on to make important points regarding the contributions which science and technology have made to freedom and industry and to the quality of life of people everywhere.
!CITE:
1998-19:3
Moreover, the article outlines how certain radicals would shut off technological benefits in the name of protecting earth at the expense of the humans who live on this planet. I commend this article to every Member and insert it in the record as an extension hereof.
!CITE:
1998-19:4
[From Access to Energy, February 1998]
SEADRIFT
Near the Gulf of Mexico, on the road between Houston and Corpus Christi, is the town of Victoria, Texas — one of the oldest settlements in the western United States. Thirty-five miles southeast of Victoria, rising out of the mists that roll in from the Gulf near the town of Seadrift, is one of America’s great petrochemical plants, built by Union Carbide in 1954 and later expanded several times.
!CITE:
1998-19:5
I feel that I know this plant well, since I have a large framed aerial photograph of it on the wall beside me along with a matching framed artist’s drawing of the plant before it was built. Under the artist’s drawing is the aluminum hard hat of the man who was in charge of the design and construction of this plant and partially responsible for its operation during the first four years — my father, Edward H. “Ted” Robinson. His most trusted and valued co-worker at that time, Arnold Graham, still lives in Victoria, remembering their efforts.
!CITE:
1998-19:6
Ted Robinson went on to lead teams of engineers who designed and built similar Union Carbide plants in Puerto Rico, Scotland, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, and India. He is buried in an alpine glacier near the top of Mont Blanc on the border between France and Italy, which contains the remains of the Air India Boeing 707 that crashed there on January 24, 1966. The cause of this crash is not known for certain. It is believed to have been the work of assassins that killed the Indian physicist Bhaba, who was then head of the nuclear energy program of India and was also on the airplane.
!CITE:
1998-19:7
The original plant at Seadrift produced primarily polyethylene. It now produces additional products. This plant is a part of the vast infrastructure of chemical plants, built by the generation of Americans now in their 80s and the generations before them, that supplies the chemicals upon which our technological civilization depends. Along with the dams, bridges, foundries, mines, wells, mills, factories, railroads, research laboratories, computers, and other technological installations that have been built by the past several generations of Americans, these plants form the technological superstructure upon which our science, technology, and economic freedom depend.
!CITE:
1998-19:8
The capital required to build these things was supplied by the savings of tens of millions of people, who set aside part of the money they had earned and invested it in the free market in hopes of making a profit. It was also built by the profits retained by the corporations themselves. Capital alone did not, however, build the industries — people did. These people were led by unusual individuals whose love of science and technology dominated their personal lives and drove them and those around them to ever greater accomplishments.
!CITE:
1998-19:9
Archibald MacLeish told me many years ago that the thing that impressed him most about human beings was their amazing ability to love — and he was not thinking of the shallow phenomenon that dominates the lyrics in the cacophony of “pusic” (word invented by a musician friend) which pollutes most of America’s radio stations.
!CITE:
1998-19:10
Each person has an enormous capacity to love — in many different ways. In some individuals, a part of this love is intensely directed toward science and technology. My father, for example, was simply head-over-heels in love with chemical plants (and with my mother, but that is another story). He lived and breathed their design and construction. When not in use for food, our kitchen table was covered with blueprints. He had no hobbies or avocations — the building of chemical plants was his vocation and all of his avocations combined. And, as a result of this all-consuming love, he built superb plants.
!CITE:
1998-19:11
I have seen this sort of love in a few other individuals. Mrs. Merrifield, the wife of R. Bruce Merrifield, who was the first man to synthesize an enzyme, described her husband’s love affair with each of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids — a love that enabled him to link them together in ways never before accomplished.
!CITE:
1998-19:12
Linus Pauling, regardless of the low state of his personal and professional ethics, was completely in love with the structures of molecules. The incredible joy Linus felt as he pursued three-dimensional, semi-quantitative explanations for the structures of molecules and, later, for the structures of atomic nuclei was the greatest of all the scientists I have known. He was supremely happy when calculating or describing the properties of chemical bonds.
!CITE:
1998-19:13
Scientists work largely alone or with a few other people. Those who build industries work with large numbers of people. These prime builders, driven by their love for their work, are usually not the most well-liked, but they are often the most respected. It is their job to make our industrial world work — regardless of the personal foibles of those whom they must direct in doing this work. Their personal love for their work is the driving force that motivates them.
!CITE:
1998-19:14
All of us are beneficiaries of science and technology. We live lives that are much longer and are filled with seemingly endless pleasures, experiences, and freedoms that would not be available without technology. Even the “warmers” who gathered in Kyoto to bemoan and attack the world’s hydrocarbon technology dropped in by way of airplanes belching demon carbon dioxide.
!CITE:
1998-19:15
Now, virtually all of our technology is under serious attack. From our lumber mills, farms, and ranches to our dams, power plants, and factories, all are under assault. Our enemies belong to a peculiar form of pagan religion. Petr Beckmann called it the “green religion.” This is not a new religion. The animal, plant, and earth worship ascendant today (partially at the expense of animals, plants, and the earth, which are, on balance, actually harmed by this mania) is fundamentally the same as that which arose periodically among the ancients, as chronicled, for example, in the Old Testament.
!CITE:
1998-19:16
This religion is now preached in our schools, our press, and our political institutions. It is, primarily, a religion of death. Technology, in the view of these zealots, has committed a terrible sin. It has made possible the lives of billions of human beings — human beings whom they believe to be alive at the expense of worshiped plants and animals. (The fact that technology enhances the lives of plants and animals is suppressed by the professional enviro religious agitators.)
!CITE:
1998-19:17
It is the moral obligation of every American — each living and benefiting from freedom and technology; each obligated to pass these blessings on to future generations; and each entrusted with a vote in the fate of the great American experiment — to stop this mania.
!CITE:
1998-19:18
Seadrift and the tens of thousands of like accomplishments must not be destroyed — at least not without a terrible fight.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.
!CITE:
1998-20:2
Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only consult 1996’s welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national data base.
!CITE:
1998-20:3
Another example of the abuse of the Social Security number is a provision in tax law requiring a spouse paying alimony furnish the IRS with the Social Security number of the spouse receiving alimony.
!CITE:
1998-20:4
There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens.
!CITE:
1998-20:5
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation’s founders.
!CITE:
1998-20:6
Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
!TITLE:
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
!DATE:
25 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
!CITE:
1998-21:2
Our founding fathers formed our government to ensure that no single person could have complete power or authority over any aspect of government; to give anyone that kind of power is to invite tyranny.
!CITE:
1998-21:3
I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Sproul’s article. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution: an oath which we must take seriously if we are to promote liberty, peace and civil society.
!CITE:
1998-21:4
BOMBING THE CONSTITUTION
By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
When was the last time the United States went to war? That’s not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a “police action.” Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.
!CITE:
1998-21:5
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?
!CITE:
1998-21:6
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above “non-wars” however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?
!CITE:
1998-21:7
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the “War Powers Act” which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that’s not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.
!CITE:
1998-21:8
Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action.
!CITE:
1998-21:9
And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren’t wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they’re in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that’s war.
!CITE:
1998-21:10
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I’m not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can’t read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-21:11
These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.
!TITLE:
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
!DATE:
26 February 1998
!CITE:
1998-22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2460, The Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Setting aside the vital and relevant question of whether the enumerated powers and tenth amendment allow the federal government to make possession of electronic scanning devices criminal, another aspect of this bill should have met with harsh criticism from those who hold individual liberties in even some regard.
!CITE:
1998-22:2
Under current “anti-cloning” law, prosecutors must prove a defendant intended to use scanning equipment illegally, or have an “intent” to defraud. This bill shifts the burden of proof of “innocent use” from the prosecutor to the defendant.
!CITE:
1998-22:3
The United States Constitution prohibits this federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the persecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to ten years).
!CITE:
1998-22:4
This radical departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” warrants opposition to this bill.
!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
!DATE:
5 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act H.R. 3339. This legislation would condition the continuation of farm subsidies on the maintenance of rice production. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy will continue to flow in spite of an end to production.
!CITE:
1998-23:2
Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to “wean” landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are “something for nothing” subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.
!CITE:
1998-23:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by this legislation they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers.
!CITE:
1998-23:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
!CITE:
1998-23:5
America’s rice farmers are among the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. Our rice producers can compete with anyone absent such hurdles and this bill will help remove one. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations which would like access to rice produced in America. Further we should eliminate the burdensome taxes regulations on America’s farmers to insure increased market access and a healthy farming community in the these United States.
!TITLE:
Birth Defects Prevention Act
!DATE:
10 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers.
!CITE:
1998-24:2
For most of the past thirty years, I have worked as physician specializing in obstetrics. In so doing, I delivered more than 4,000 infants. Despite what I believe to be a somewhat unique insight on the topic of birth defect prevention, today, I address the house as a Congressman rather than as a physician.
!CITE:
1998-24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?
!CITE:
1998-24:4
In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the “defense and welfare” clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8.
!CITE:
1998-24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.
!CITE:
1998-24:6
Jefferson, in one of his most famous remarks, when addressing the issue of whether to grant a federal charter to a mining business, recognized below the slippery slope of a lax interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause:
!CITE:
1998-24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]
!CITE:
1998-24:8
Cleary, while engaging in such congressional activism makes “clean work,” it also makes for an oppressive national government involved in every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Remember that in engaging in such activism, the next liberty upon which the Congress infringes, may be your own.
!CITE:
1998-24:9
I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this “road to serfdom” albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, “preventing birth defects”. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer’s notion of a national government of limited powers.
!CITE:
1998-24:10
For these reasons I oppose S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997.
!TITLE:
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
!DATE:
10 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming.
!CITE:
1998-25:2
Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie?
!CITE:
1998-25:3
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova “without question a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?
!CITE:
1998-25:4
Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, “All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.” What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.
!CITE:
1998-25:5
All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions.
!CITE:
1998-25:6
The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.
!CITE:
1998-25:7
Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-25:8
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
!CITE:
1998-25:9
Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.
!CITE:
1998-25:10
This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world’s natural resources?
!CITE:
1998-25:11
Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.
!CITE:
1998-25:12
Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.
!CITE:
1998-25:13
Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
!TITLE:
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
!DATE:
17 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues two House concurrent resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow.
!CITE:
1998-26:2
The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
!CITE:
1998-26:3
The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months, and each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended.
!CITE:
1998-26:4
Currently, it is the President’s position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date for this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble.
!CITE:
1998-26:5
Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.
!CITE:
1998-26:6
There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot.
!CITE:
1998-26:7
So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionism foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm’s way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger.
!CITE:
1998-26:8
Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves.
!CITE:
1998-26:9
So it is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by imposing and sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region?
!CITE:
1998-26:10
So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.
!CITE:
1998-26:11
So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.
!CITE:
1998-26:12
I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region.
!CITE:
1998-26:13
But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President.
!TITLE:
Bombing Iraq
!DATE:
18 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.
!CITE:
1998-27:2
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-27:3
The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.
!CITE:
1998-27:4
Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency.
!CITE:
1998-27:5
Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.
!CITE:
1998-27:6
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.
!CITE:
1998-27:7
The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.
!CITE:
1998-27:8
Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm’s way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable.
!CITE:
1998-27:9
We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.
!TITLE:
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
!DATE:
26 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
!CITE:
1998-28:2
MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED
The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.
!CITE:
1998-28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
!CITE:
1998-28:4
In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions.
!CITE:
1998-28:5
UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization. Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony “back dues” which we supposedly “owe” this organization. Congressman ROSCOE BARTLETT put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. BARTLETT’s legislation.
!CITE:
1998-28:6
LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES
We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.
!CITE:
1998-28:7
This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a “deal” has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.
!CITE:
1998-28:8
THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN”
The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle.
!CITE:
1998-28:9
“PEACEKEEPING”
This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our “police the world” program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.
!CITE:
1998-28:10
ADDTIONALLY
This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.
!CITE:
1998-28:11
Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
!CITE:
1998-28:13
CONCLUSION
Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
!TITLE:
Unfortunate Passage Of Foreign Affairs Conference Report
!DATE:
27 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs conference report was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. For weeks, arms had been twisted because the votes were not available to pass it. This surprised some and pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue.
!CITE:
1998-29:2
But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed.
!CITE:
1998-29:3
It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified.
!CITE:
1998-29:4
Events surrounding the passage of the foreign affairs conference report occurring yesterday should not make any of us proud.
!TITLE:
Illegal Wars
!DATE:
31 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SKAGGS) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much his work in this effort.
!CITE:
1998-30:2
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is “best part.” By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm’s way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there.
!CITE:
1998-30:3
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.
!TITLE:
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
!DATE:
31 March 1998
!CITE:
1998-31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill to further fund, at the expense of airports and Section 8 Housing Assistance, the unconstitutional effort to “police the world.” Having submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund the “police the world” aspects of this bill only to be denied in the Rules process, I must oppose final passage of this supplemental Appropriations bill.
!CITE:
1998-31:2
One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-31:3
Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport funding to be spent on our “police-the-world” program.
!CITE:
1998-31:4
It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.
!CITE:
1998-31:5
I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
!CITE:
1998-31:6
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-31:7
For these reasons I must oppose this bill which provides additional funding for exactly these purposes.
!TITLE:
On Regulating Credit Unions
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I am an original cosponsor of 1151. But the original bill never came to the committee. It was quickly substituted with another bill, which I think is seriously weakened from the original bill that we had. So I would like to let all those 207 Members who are cosponsors that are not voting on the bill that they signed their name onto know that there are two major changes that have occurred.
!CITE:
1998-32:2
One is that the multiple common-bond position of 1151 has been removed. Now it is restrictive. And the other thing is there has been a lot of regulations added, and I think that we should consider long-term economic consequences and political consequences of opening up the door to regulations and also what it means down the road as far as insurance goes.
!CITE:
1998-32:3
For instance, it was bragged upon, the bill was bragged upon because the regulations of safety and soundness was good. We have had a lot of regulation, for safety and soundness for banks and savings and loan, and yet the FDIC and FSLIC had to be bailed out. The insurance deposit for credit unions was started by private money, no government subsidies, and has never been bailed out. So now we are going to overlook the credit unions and make sure they are safer and sound.
!CITE:
1998-32:4
I think it is the wrong direction that we are going. I think the whole notion that we are going to have the Community Reinvestment Act applied to the credit unions is going in the wrong direction. This is a form of credit allocation and, actually, long term, will weaken the credit unions.
!CITE:
1998-32:5
I would like to speak up for the credit unions and say this bill has been weakened to such a degree that they have opened up the doors, and down the road they are going to be treated like the banks, and down the road they will probably receive the taxation that banks have.
!CITE:
1998-32:6
I resent the idea that the competitors and the small banks, who do not like the competition of the credit unions, they say, well, let us tax them and regulate them. So, in a way, we have accommodated the banks by adding the regulations onto the credit unions.
!CITE:
1998-32:7
I do not think this is going in the right direction, and we should seriously consider a no vote on this legislation.
!TITLE:
Credit Union Membership Access Act
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since I was the first one in this Congress to step forward and introduce legislation affirming the NCUA’s position allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions and signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 1151 as originally written, I feel that I am in a disagreement among friends. I must oppose this bill because of the new regulations it imposes on credit unions and does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of the banks.
!CITE:
1998-33:2
While I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions, the new regulations imposed upon them demonstrate a decision to follow the wrong path to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions. A better approach would have been to lead the congress towards less taxes and less regulation. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the committee, follows a path of more regulations and leads toward higher taxes on credit unions while the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, which I introduced a year ago, lowers taxes and regulations on banks. While H.R. 1151 does not impose new, direct taxes on credit unions, I fear that that day is just around the corner.
!CITE:
1998-33:3
The NCUSIF was the only deposit insurance fund started without any federal seed money and the credit unions never came to Washington for a taxpayer-funded bailout. In fact, allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions enhanced their safety and soundness. This bill will add new “safety and soundness” and CRA-like regulations on credit unions. These regulations will add a burdensome regulatory cost. This cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher fees, higher interest rates and less service. It is the marginal consumer who will lose the most when this bill becomes law.
!CITE:
1998-33:4
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulations can only be larger.”
!CITE:
1998-33:5
These regulations, under which the credit unions will now suffer a greater burden with the passage of this bill, impose a disproportionate burden on smaller institutions. These increased, and unfairly imposed, regulations will stifle the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector and contribute to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. As the introduction of new entrants into the market becomes more costly, smaller institutions will face a marginally increased burden and will be more likely to consolidate. “The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
!CITE:
1998-33:6
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. CRA compliance costs for small banks was $1 billion and 14.4 million employee hours in 1991. For each $1 million in assets, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.
!CITE:
1998-33:7
The IBAA study identifies the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. In short, this bill takes the most costly and least beneficial and useful regulation on banks and adds a similar, new regulation on credit unions. Reducing the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks would have been a better approach.
!CITE:
1998-33:8
In addition to all of the problems associated with the obligations and requirements that the government regulations impose on the productive, private sectors of the economy, the regulations amount to a government credit allocation scheme. As Ludwig von Mises explained well in the Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, governmental credit allocation is a misdirection of credit which leads to malinvestment and contributes to an artificial boom and bust cycle. Nobel laureate Frederick A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard expounded on this idea.
!CITE:
1998-33:9
The unintended consequences of the passage of this bill, as written, will be to stifle the formation on new credit unions, consolidate current credit unions into larger ones better able to internalize the cost of the additional regulations, and lower productivity and economic growth due to the misallocation of credit. This increased burden must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The increased costs on credit unions this bill imposes will lead to a reduction of access to credit unions, higher fees and higher rates. These provisions are anti-consumer. The marginal consumers, those who currently can only receive a loan from a credit union without the burden of CRA, are the ones who will suffer under the provision of this bill. I hope that the bill can be improved as the process continues and lead to less regulations and other taxes on banks rather than more regulations and other taxes on credit unions.
!TITLE:
Building Highways Is State Function
!DATE:
1 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-34:2
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.
!CITE:
1998-34:3
Of course today we do not debate that issue in that light, but I think we see the results of doing something that was not proper. Today it is very expensive, it is very bureaucratic, and we have seen tonight in the debate how it has become politicized.
!CITE:
1998-34:4
So if we are looking for a fair way to build highways, a more efficient way to build highways, I think this is the answer. This is not going backwards, this is going forward. This would be the first time we could have a national highway system really controlled by the States where it is supposed to be. The States would have more money, not less money. They would have less regulation, not more regulation.
!CITE:
1998-34:5
This is much better than block grants. This is returning responsibility to the States. I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.
!TITLE:
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
!DATE:
21 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-35:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the House is about to implement rule changes that will require random drug testing of all House Members and staff. Drug usage in this country, both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be done.
!CITE:
1998-35:2
The real issue here is not drugs but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the fourth amendment.
!CITE:
1998-35:3
A broader but related question is whether or not it is the government’s role to mold behavior, any more than it is the government’s role to mold, regulate, tax and impede voluntary economic contractual arrangements.
!CITE:
1998-35:4
No one advocates prior restraint to regulate journalistic expression, even though great harm has come over the century from the promotion of authoritarian ideas. Likewise, we do not advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs, however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem.
!CITE:
1998-35:5
Yet we casually assume it is the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly. A large number of us in this Chamber do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it is the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun.
!CITE:
1998-35:6
Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable efforts at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect for our privacy. It is not worth it.
!CITE:
1998-35:7
While some Members are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a fairer society, there are others here who are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a good society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians and bureaucrats know what is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched, why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well? Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner as well. Especially we who champion the cause of limited government ought not be the promoters of the roving eye of Big Brother.
!CITE:
1998-35:8
If we embark on this course to check randomly all congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it might be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good is inconsistent, to say the least. Unfortunately, the administration is now pursuing an anti-tobacco policy that will be even less successful than the ill-fated Federal war on drugs.
!CITE:
1998-35:9
I have one question for my colleagues: If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty and our own innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents, which we have sworn an oath to do?
!CITE:
1998-35:10
Those promoting these drug testing rules are well motivated, just as are those who promote economic welfare legislation. Members with good intentions attempting to solve social problems perversely use government power and inevitably hurt innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few.
!CITE:
1998-35:11
It is said that if one has nothing to hide, why object to testing? Because, quite simply, we have something to keep: our freedom, our privacy and the fourth amendment. The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary drug testing, whereby each individual and each Member of the House makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this.
!TITLE:
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
!DATE:
22 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this very important issue to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-36:2
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentlemen and ladies on the other side who have spoken out against this resolution, because I have to compliment them. They are brave to be able to come up here and speak their beliefs and really come out on the position of being for taxes. If I did something like that, I could not return to Texas. But I have to admire them for their willingness to come here and take a pro-tax position, so I think that is to be commended.
!CITE:
1998-36:3
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be worrying.
!CITE:
1998-36:4
The other contention we have and have to think about is if we do not already follow the Constitution in so many ways, why are we going to follow it next time? Nevertheless, this is a great debate. I am glad I am a cosponsor. I am glad it was brought to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-36:5
We do have to remember there is another half to taxation and that is the spending half. It is politically unpopular to talk about spending. It is politically very popular to talk about the taxes. So, yes, we are for lower taxes, but we also have to realize that the government is too big. They are consuming 50 percent of our revenues and our income today, and that is the problem.
!CITE:
1998-36:6
Government can pay for these bills in three different ways. One, they can tax us. One, they can borrow. And one, they can have the tax of inflation, which is indeed a tax. We are dealing here only with one single tax. But eventually, when we make a sincere effort to get this government under control, we will look at all three areas.
!CITE:
1998-36:7
We will limit the borrowing power. We will limit the ability of this Congress to inflate the currency to pay the bills. And we certainly will follow the rules of this House and this Constitution and not raise taxes.
!TITLE:
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
!DATE:
22 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, education in this country is facing a crisis. If we look at our schools carefully, we find out that there are a lot of drugs in our schools, actually murders occur in our schools, rape occurs in our schools, it is infested with teenage pregnancies. There is total disrespect for authority in many of our schools, and there is no good record to show that the academic progress is being made that is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-37:2
The President happens to believe that if we have national testing, this will solve all our problems. And now he is addressing these very, very serious problems that we have in our schools with saying that if we can only get these kids not to smoke a cigarette, maybe we are going to solve these educational problems.
!CITE:
1998-37:3
I would say that he is going in the wrong directions. These are serious problems and we must do something, but pretending that we are going to crack down on kids testing a cigarette, as bad as it is, is not going to solve our problems.
!CITE:
1998-37:4
I have a couple suggestions to make on what we can do to improve the educational system. I have a bill that I introduced recently. It is H.R. 3626. It is called the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This is a bill I think everybody in this body could support.
!CITE:
1998-37:5
What it does, it takes away taxation on any youngster who makes some money at one of these 4–H or Future Farmers of America fairs. When they sell their livestock, believe it or not, we go and tax them. Just think of this. The kids are out there trying to do something for themselves, earn some money, save some money and go to school; and what do we do as a Congress, we pick on the kids, we go and we tax these kids.
!CITE:
1998-37:6
I talked to a youngster just this past weekend in the farm community in my district, and he told me he just sold an animal for $1,200 and he has to give $340 to the U.S. Government. Now, what are we doing, trying to destroy the incentive for these youngsters assuming some responsibility for themselves? Instead, what do we do? We say the only way a youngster could ever go to college is if we give them a grant, if we give them a scholarship, if we give them a student loan. And what is the record on payment on student loans? Not very good. A lot of them walk away.
!CITE:
1998-37:7
There is also the principle of it. Why should the Federal Government be involved in this educational process? And besides, the other question is, if we give scholarships and low-interest loans to people who go to college, what we are doing is making the people who do not get to go to college pay for that education, which to me does not seem fair. It seems like that the advantage goes to the individual who gets to go to college, and the people who do not get to go to college should not have to subsidize them.
!CITE:
1998-37:8
I think it is unfair it pick on these kids. I think it is time that we quit taxing any youngster who makes some money at a 4–H fair or Future Farmers of America fair where they are selling their livestock and trying to earn money to go to college.
!CITE:
1998-37:9
I think it is proper to say that they should have no taxation without representation. They are not even old enough to vote, and here we are taxing them. I mean that is not fair.
!CITE:
1998-37:10
So I am hoping that I get a lot of cosponsors for this bill, because there sure are a lot of youngsters around the country trying to assume responsibility for themselves.
!CITE:
1998-37:11
I do not believe for 1 minute the President’s approach that we are going to assume that every kid is going to grow up to be a smoke fiend, and if we do not do something quickly, we are going to have them developing all these bad habits; at the same time, we see the deterioration of the public educational system.
!CITE:
1998-37:12
Also, I would like to mention very briefly another piece of legislation that would deal with this educational crisis. The Federal Government has been involved in our public schools for several decades. There is no evidence to show that, as we increase the funding and increase the bureaucracy, that there has been any improvement in education. Quite to the contrary, the exact opposite has happened.
!CITE:
1998-37:13
So I would say there is a very good practical case. I know the constitutional argument does not mean much. But the practical case is there is no evidence that what we have done so far has been helpful.
!CITE:
1998-37:14
I have another piece of legislation that would give $3,000 tax credit to every family for every child that they want to educate by themselves. So if they would spend any money on their child, whether they are in school or out of school, in private school, at home schooling, they would get this $3,000 credit. I hope my colleagues will take a look at these two pieces of legislation.
!TITLE:
Don’t Bail Out Bankers
!DATE:
23 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to this motion. This should be a very easy vote for all of us; we should all vote no. They already have $35 billion of our money. They want $18 billion more. That is $53 billion.
!CITE:
1998-38:2
Think about it. Some of you would like to spend that on the military, on national defense. That would not be too bad an idea. Others might want to spend it on domestic welfare programs. This would be a better idea than bailing out rich bankers and foreign governments. Besides, there are some of us who would like to give the $53 billion back to the American people and lower their taxes. But to give them another $18 billion does not make any sense.
!CITE:
1998-38:3
Then to come to us and say it will not cost the taxpayers any money is absurd. Why do they come here and try to sneak through this appropriation with a parliamentary trick, if it is not going to cost the taxpayers any money? Certainly it is going to cost the taxpayers money. It adds to the national debt, and we have to pay interest on the national debt. This is a cost.
!CITE:
1998-38:4
Now, the Director of the IMF had an interesting proposal. He said this will not cost us anything because it is coming out of the Central Bank.
!TITLE:
The Bubble
!DATE:
28 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. JONES).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.
!CITE:
1998-39:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the big question is how history will play the current financial situation if all the great wealth accumulated in the last 10 years dissipates in a financial collapse.
!CITE:
1998-39:3
According to an article in The New Republic, Greenspan is not only held in high esteem on Wall Street, he is seen as Godlike. One trader is quoted as saying, “When things go well, I hold Greenspan’s picture between my hands and say, thank you. When things go poorly, I also take the photo in my hands and pray.” And he is not alone on Wall Street in heaping praise on Greenspan. This comes as close to idolatry as one can get.
!CITE:
1998-39:4
Alan Greenspan took over the Fed a few months before the stock market crash of October, 1997. In the 10 years that Greenspan has headed the Fed, $2 trillion of new credit has been created as measured by M3. Banks threatened by bankruptcy in the early 1990s received generous assistance from the Fed policy of low interest rates and rapid credit expansion as a response to the recession of 1991. Fed fund rates were held at 3 percent for well over a year. This generous dose of Fed credit has fueled the 5-year superboom on Wall Street.
!CITE:
1998-39:5
We are endlessly told no inflation exists. But inflation is strictly and always a monetary phenomenon and not something that can be measured by a government consumer or producer price index.
!CITE:
1998-39:6
Even so, there currently is significant price inflation for the fancy homes throughout the country, especially in the New York and Connecticut areas influenced by the New York financial center. CEO compensation is astronomically high, while wages for the common man have been held in check. The cost of all entertainment is not cheap and rises constantly. Art prices are soaring, as is the price of tickets to athletic events. Buying stocks with a 1.8 percent dividend yield is not cheap. These prices are inflated. The cost of education, medicine, and general services are expensive and rising.
!CITE:
1998-39:7
In spite of Government reports showing food prices are not rising, many constituents I talk to tell me food prices are always going up. It seems every family has difficulty compensating for the high cost of living and taxes are always inflating.
!CITE:
1998-39:8
There is no doubt that many Americans know the salaries of the CEOs, athletes and entertainers are astronomically high. The wages of the average working man, though, has not kept up. Workers feel poorer and resentment grows.
!CITE:
1998-39:9
Even with all of Wall Street’s euphoria, Main Street still harbors deep concern for their financial condition and the future of the country. Many families continue to find it difficult to pay their bills, and personal bankruptcies are at a record high at 1,400,000 per year. Downsizing of our large corporations continue as many manufacturing jobs are sent overseas.
!CITE:
1998-39:10
This current financial bubble started in mid-1982. At that time, the money supply, as measured by M3, was $2.4 trillion. Today it is over $5.5 trillion. That is a lot of inflation, and money supply growth is currently accelerating.
!CITE:
1998-39:11
Although the money supply has been significantly increased in the past 16 years and financial prices as well as other prices have gone up, Government officials continue to try to reassure the American people that there is no inflation to worry about because price increases, as measured by the Government’s CPI and PPI, are not significantly rising.
!CITE:
1998-39:12
Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated. If we had an average valuation of the Dow Jones Industrials for the past 87 years, as measured by the PE ratios, the Dow would be a mere 4,100 today, not over 9,000. And the Dow would be much lower yet if we took the average price-to-dividend ratio or the price-to-book ratio.
!CITE:
1998-39:13
The NASDAQ is now selling at 85 times earning. There is no doubt that most stock prices are grossly inflated and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history.
!CITE:
1998-39:14
A lot of foreign money has been used to buy our stocks, one of the consequences of computer-age financial technology and innovations. Our negative trade balance allows foreign governments to accumulate large amounts of our treasury debt. This serves to dampen the bad effect of our monetary inflation on domestic prices, while providing reserves for foreign central banks to further expand their own credit.
!CITE:
1998-39:15
Think of this: Money can be borrowed in Japan at Depression-era rates of 1 percent and then reinvested here in the United States either in more treasury debt earning 5 or 6 percent, or reinvested in our stock market, which is currently climbing at a 20 percent annualized rate. This sounds like a perfect deal for today’s speculators, but there is nothing that guarantees this process will continue for much longer. Perfect situations never last forever.
!CITE:
1998-39:16
Some of the euphoria that adds to the financial bubble on Wall Street and internationally is based on optimistic comments made by our government officials. Political leaders remind us time and again that our budget is balanced and the concern now is how to spend the excess. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the money that is being used to offset the deficit comes from our trust funds.
!CITE:
1998-39:17
In other words, it’s comparable to a corporation stealing from its pension fund in order to show a better bottom line in its day-to-day operations. Government spending and deficits are not being brought under control. Tax rates are at historic highs, and all government taxation now consumes 50 percent of the gross national income.
!CITE:
1998-39:18
It is now commonly believed that the East Asian financial crisis is having no impact on our economy. But it’s too early to make that kind of an assessment. Our president remains popular, according to the polls, but what will it be like if there’s any sign of economic weakness? There could then be a lot of “piling on” and finger pointing.
!CITE:
1998-39:19
PROBLEMS AND VICTIMS
The basic cause of any financial bubble is the artificial creation of credit by a central bank (in this case our Federal Reserve). Artificially creating credit causes the currency to depreciate in value over time. It is important to understand the predictable economic problems that result from a depreciating currency:
!CITE:
1998-39:20
1. In the early stages it is difficult to forecast exactly who will suffer and when.
!CITE:
1998-39:21
2. Inflated currency and artificially low interest rates result in mal-investment that produces over capacity in one area or another.
!CITE:
1998-39:22
3. Wealth generally transfers from the hands of the middle-class into the hands of the very wealthy. (The very poor receiving welfare gain a degree of protection, short of a total destruction of the currency.)
!CITE:
1998-39:23
4. Prices indeed do go up, although which prices will go up is unpredictable, and the CPI and PPI can never be a dependable measurement of a monetary policy driven by loose credit.
!CITE:
1998-39:24
5. The group that suffers the very most is the low-middle-income group (those willing to stay off welfare, yet unable to benefit from any transfer of wealth as stagnant wages fail to protect them from the ravages of the rising cost of living).
!CITE:
1998-39:25
There are probably several reasons why this current economic boom has lasted longer than most others. The elimination of the Soviet threat has allowed a feeling of optimism not felt in many decades, and there has subsequently been tremendous optimism placed on potential economic development of many world markets in this age of relative peace.
!CITE:
1998-39:26
There is also very poor understanding regarding economic interventionism, the system most nations of the world accept today. Today’s interventionism is not close to a free market. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises consistently pointed out that interventionism always leads to a form of socialism, which then eliminates the apparent benefits of interventionism.
!CITE:
1998-39:27
A good example of how interventionism leads to the destruction of a market can be seen in the recent tobacco fiasco. First, the tobacco industry accepted subsidies and protectionism to build a powerful and wealthy industry. Then, having conceded this “nanny” role to the government, Big Tobacco had no defense when it was held liable for illnesses that befell some of the willing users of tobacco products. Now, the current plan of super taxation on tobacco users will allow the politicians to bail out the individual farmers who may be injured by reduced use of tobacco products (destruction of the market). This half-trillion-dollar tax proposal hardly solves the problem.
!CITE:
1998-39:28
Just as in the 1920’s today’s productivity has fooled some economists by keeping prices down on certain items. Certainly computer prices are down because the price of computer-power has dropped drastically, yet this should not be interpreted as an “absence” of inflation. Innovation has kept prices down in the computer industry, but it fails to do so when government becomes overly involved as it has in other technological areas, such as medical technology, where prices have gone up for services such as MRIs and CAT scans, not down.
!CITE:
1998-39:29
LEARN FROM JAPAN
The most important thing to remember is that perceptions and economic conditions here can change rapidly, just as they did last summer in the East Asian countries with the bursting of their financial bubble. They are now in deep recession.
!CITE:
1998-39:30
Even though Japan first recognized signs of difficulty nine years ago, their problems linger because they have not allowed the liquidation of debt, or the elimination of over capacity, or the adjustment for real estate prices that would occur if the market were permitted to operate free of government intervention. The U.S. did the same thing in the 1930s, and I suspect we will do exactly what Japan is doing once our problems become more pressing. With our own problems from the inflation of the last 15 years now becoming apparent, their only answer so far is to inflate even more.
!CITE:
1998-39:31
In its effort to re-energize the economy, the Bank of Japan is increasing its reserves at a 51 percent rate. This may be the greatest effort to “inflate” and economy back to health in all of history. Japan has inflated over the years and will not permit a full correction of their mal-investment. The Bank of Japan is doing everything possible to inflate again, but even with interest rates below 1 percent there are few takers.
!CITE:
1998-39:32
OECD measurements, the M1 and quasi-money have been increasing at greater than 20 percent per year in East Asia. In the United Stats, M3 has been increasing at 10 percent a year. It is estimated that this year the U.S. will have a $250 billion current account deficit — continued evidence of our ability to export our inflation.
!CITE:
1998-39:33
We are now the world’s greatest debtor, with an approximately $1 trillion debt to foreign nations. Although accumulation of our debt by foreign holders has leveled off, it has not dropped significantly. The peak occurred in mid-1997 — today these holding are slightly lower.
!CITE:
1998-39:34
THE CRUELEST TAX OF ALL
This process of deliberately depreciating a currency over time (inflation) causes a loss in purchasing power and is especially harmful to those individuals who save. AIER (American Institute for Economic Research) calculates that 100 million households since 1945 have lost $11.2 trillion in purchasing power. This comes out to $112,000 per household, or put another way, over 5 decades each one of these households lost $2,200 every year.
!CITE:
1998-39:35
Although many households are feeling very wealthy today because their stock portfolios are more valuable, this can change rather rapidly in a crash. The big question is what does the future hold for the purchasing power of the dollar over the next 10 or 20 years?
!CITE:
1998-39:36
THE END IN SIGHT?
Reassurance that all is well is a strategy found at the end of a boom cycle. Government revenues are higher than anticipated, and many are feeling richer than they are. The more inflated the stock market is as a consequence of credit creation, the less, reliable these markets are at predicting future economic events. Stock markets can be good predictors of the future, but the more speculative they become, the less likely it is the markets will reveal what the world will be like next year.
!CITE:
1998-39:37
The business cycle — the boom-bust cycle of history — has not been repealed. The psychological element of trust in the money, politicians, and central bankers can permit financial bubbles to last longer, but policies can vary as well as perceptions, both being unpredictable.
!CITE:
1998-39:38
CENTRAL BANKERS
The goal of central bankers has always been to gain “benefit” from the inflation they create, while preventing deflation and prolonging the boom as long as possible — a formidable task indeed. The more sophisticated and successful the central bankers are as technicians, the larger the bubble they create.
!CITE:
1998-39:39
In recent years, central bankers have had greater “success” for several reasons. First, due to the age in which we live, internationalizing labor costs has been a great deal more convenient. It is much easier for companies to either shift labor from one country to another, or for the company itself to go to the area of the world that provides the cheapest labor. This has occurred with increased rapidity and ease over the past two decades.
!CITE:
1998-39:40
Central bankers have also become more sophisticated in the balancing act between inflation and deflation. They are great technicians and are quite capable of interpreting events and striking a balance between these two horrors. This does not cancel out the basic flaw of a fiat currency; central bankers cannot replace the marketplace for determining interest rates and the proper amount of credit the economy needs.
!CITE:
1998-39:41
Central bankers have also had the advantage of technological changes that increase productivity and also serve to keep down certain prices. It is true that we live in an information age, an age in which travel is done with ease and communication improvements are astounding. All of these events allow for a bigger bubble and a higher standards of living. Unfortunately this will not prove to be as sustainable as many hope.
!CITE:
1998-39:42
THE PRICE OF GOLD
Another reason for the central bankers greater recent success is that they have been quite willing to cooperate with each other in propping up selected currency values and driving down others. They have cooperated vigorously in dumping or threatening to dump gold in order to keep the dollar price of gold in check. They are all very much aware that a soaring gold price would be a vote of no confidence for central-bank policy.
!CITE:
1998-39:43
Washington goes along because it is furtively, but definitely, acknowledged there that a free-market, high gold price would send a bad signal worldwide about the world financial system. Therefore, every effort is made to keep the price of gold low for as long as possible. It’s true the supply-siders have some interest in gold, but they are not talking about a gold standard, merely a price rule that encourages central-bank fixing of the price of gold. Most defenders of the free-enterprise system in Washington are Keynesians at heart and will not challenge interventionism on principle.
!CITE:
1998-39:44
Instead of making sure that policy is correct, central bankers are much more interested in seeing that the gold-price message reflects confidence in the paper money. Thus gold has remained in the doldrums despite significant rising prices for silver, platinum, and palladium. However, be assured that even central banks cannot “fix” the price of gold forever. They tried this in the 1960’s with the dumping of hundreds of millions of ounces of American gold in order to artificially prop up the dollar by keeping the gold price at $35/oz., but in August 1971 this effort was abandoned.
!CITE:
1998-39:45
THE SOLUTION
The solution to all of this is not complex. But no effort is going to be made to correct the problems that have allowed our financial bubble to develop, because Alan Greenspan has been practically declared a god by more than one Wall Street guru. Because Alan Greenspan himself understands Austrian free-market economics and the gold standard, it is stunning to see him participate in the bubble when he, deep down inside, knows big problems lurk around the corner. Without the motivation to do something, not much is likely to happen to our monetary system in the near future.
!CITE:
1998-39:46
It must be understood that politicians and the pressure of the special interests in Washington demand that the current policies of spending, deficits, artificially low interest rates and easy credit will not change. It took the complete demise of the Soviet-Communist system before change came there. But be forewarned: change came with a big economic bang not a whimper. Fortunately that event occurred without an armed revolution . . . so far. The amazingly sudden, economic events occurring in East Asia could still lead to some serious social and military disturbances in that region.
!CITE:
1998-39:47
The key element to the financial system under which we are now living is the dollar. If confidence is lost in the dollar and a subsequent free-market price for gold develops, the whole financial system is threatened. Next year, with the European currency unit (ECU) coming on line, there could be some serious adjustments for the dollar. The success of the ECU is unpredictable, but now that they are indicating some gold will be held in reserve, it is possible that this currency will get off the ground.
!CITE:
1998-39:48
NATIONALISM
However, I continue to have serious reservations regarding the ECU’s long-term success, believing that the renewed nationalism within Europe will not permit the monetary unification of countries that have generally not trusted each other over the centuries. In Germany, 70 percent of the people oppose entering into this new monetary agreement. If economic problems worsen in Europe — currently the unemployment rate in Germany and France is 12 percent — the European union may well get blamed.
!CITE:
1998-39:49
The issue of nationalism is something that cannot be ignored. Immediately after the collapse in East Asia, Malaysia began shipping out hundreds of immigrants from Indonesia as a reaction to their economic problems. Resentment in Germany, France, and England is growing toward workers from other countries.
!CITE:
1998-39:50
The same sentiment exists here in the United States, but it’s not quiet as bad at this particular time because our economy is doing better. But in the midst of a deep recession, the scapegoats will be found and alien workers will always be a target.
!CITE:
1998-39:51
The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority.
!CITE:
1998-39:52
No one has firmly assessed the Y2K problem, but it cannot bode well if a financial crisis comes near that time. Certainly a giant company like Citicorp and Travelers, who have recently merged, could really be hurt if the Y2K problem is real. Since the markets seem to be discounting this, I have yet to make up my own mind on how serious this problem is going to be.
!CITE:
1998-39:53
WASHINGTON MENTALITY
Every politician I know in Washington is awestruck by Greenspan. The article in The New Republic reflects the way many Members of Congress feel about the “success” of Greenspan over the last ten years. Add to this the fact that there is no significant understanding of the Austrian business cycle in Washington, and the likelihood of adopting a solution to the pending crisis, based on such an understanding, is remote.
!CITE:
1998-39:54
Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent. Liberals stick to the old cliche´ that all that’s needed are more welfare benefits. They are, I’m sure, influenced by the fact that if more welfare benefits are handed out, they can count on the Federal Reserve to accommodate them. Unfortunately this will continue to motivate them to argue for a loose monetary policy.
!CITE:
1998-39:55
The debate so often seems only to be who should get the expanded credit, the business-banking community or the welfare recipients who will receive it indirectly through the monetization of an ever-expanding government deficit. In Washington there is a craving for power and influence, and this motivates some a lot more than their public display of concern for helping the poor.
!CITE:
1998-39:56
Whether it’s Japan that tries to inflate their currency to get out of an economic problem, or the East Asian countries facing their crisis, or our willingness to bail out the IMF, resorting to monetary inflation is the only option being considered. We can rest assured that inflation is here to stay.
!CITE:
1998-39:57
With daily pronouncements that inflation is dead, the stage is set for unlimited credit expansion whenever it becomes necessary. Just as deficit spending and massive budgets will continue, we can expect the falling value of the dollar, long term, to further undermine the economic and political stability of this country and the world.
!CITE:
1998-39:58
Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation.
!TITLE:
Clean Needles And Risky Behavior
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It makes no sense to pay somebody, pay for free needles to do something that is currently illegal. It is very questionable whether it will do any good.
!CITE:
1998-40:2
As a physician, I would have to agree with the opposition that a clean needle certainly is better than a dirty needle. I do not think there is a question about that. But I do believe that there is a message sent that if we provide free needles to do something that we are condoning or encouraging it. But there is also a strong moral as well as an economic argument against this.
!CITE:
1998-40:3
What we are talking about here is lowering costs of risky behavior. We are saying that we will pay for the needles to perform this risky behavior. But there is another much larger element that has not been discussed so far, and that has to do with the concept that all risky behavior be socialized; that is, through the medical system, it is assumed that those who do not participate in risky behavior must pay for the costs of the risky behavior, whether it has to do with cigarettes or whether it has to do with drugs or whether it has to do with any kind of safety.
!CITE:
1998-40:4
So, therefore, the argument is that we have to save money in medical care costs by providing free needles. But there is another position, and that is that we might suggest that we do not pay for free needles and we might even challenge the concept that we should not be paying people and taking care of them for risky behavior, whether it is risky sexual behavior or risky behavior with drugs.
!CITE:
1998-40:5
I think this is very clearly the problem, and I do not believe we should be socializing this behavior because, if we do, we actually increase it. If we lower the cost of anything, we increase the incidence of its use. So if the responsibility does not fall on the individual performing dangerous behavior, they are more likely to, and this is just part of it, the idea that we would give them a free needle.
!CITE:
1998-40:6
But there is a moral argument against this as well. Why should people who do not use drugs or do not participate in dangerous sexual procedures and activities have to pay for those who do? And this is really the question, and there is no correct moral argument for this. And the economic argument is very powerful. It says that if we lower the cost, we will increase this behavior.
!CITE:
1998-40:7
But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes. I mean, the whole tobacco argument is dealing with the same issue, that we have to pay for the costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes and, therefore, we have to come in and regulate the tobacco companies and nobody can assume responsibility for themselves.
!CITE:
1998-40:8
Same thing with alcohol and safety. This is the reason we have so much government regulation dealing with helmet laws and seat belts and buzzers and beepers and air bags. So this concept has to be dealt with if we are ever to get to the bottom of this.
!CITE:
1998-40:9
So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.
!TITLE:
Social Security Numbers And Student Loans
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1998-41:2
I rise in support of this rule. It is obviously a very fair rule because I am allowed to offer an amendment later on, so I am pleased to be able to vote for this rule. I have an amendment that I am going to offer in Title I which will be designated so that the Social Security number cannot be used for the electronic personal identifier for any of the programs in this educational bill.
!CITE:
1998-41:3
The American people have become very worried about how often the Social Security number is being used as a national identification number, and we are working quickly toward a time where we have a national identification card. We certainly have abused the Social Security number as being the number. It was never intended that way. That is not what was intended when the Social Security was started that this number would be a universal number for everything.
!CITE:
1998-41:4
In 1974, it was stated rather explicitly that the Social Security number should not be used for programs like this, and I would like to just quote the Privacy Act of 1974: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
!CITE:
1998-41:5
I think this is a good idea, because today we are very much aware of the fact that if a company, if a loaning company, or if one is going into a store to buy something, and they get one’s name and one’s Social Security number, one knows that they can call up more information about somebody than they know about themselves. I think this is a serious threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and we should be cautious about using the Social Security number. It is being used all the time.
!CITE:
1998-41:6
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to this Congress, I was an obstetrician delivering babies, and babies cannot leave the hospital these days without a Social Security number. So they are born, get a Social Security number, they do not leave the hospital without it, and do my colleagues know that one cannot have a death certificate without a Social Security number? They are everyplace. It is an intrusion on our privacy. We do not need to use a Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-41:7
When I was in the Air Force, we used to have an identification number, but now, today, it is the Social Security number. Not too many years ago a law was passed here in the Congress that mandates that each State licensing agent for our automobile says that one has to have a Social Security number. So now they will be cross-checking with Social Security number and all of our driver’s license numbers. We are losing our privacy in this country. The American people know it. We do not need this number to be used in this program for it to be successful, and we should move very cautiously, and I hope I can get support for this amendment so that we do not use the Social Security number as the electronic personal identifier.
!TITLE:
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 50, line 13, at the end of paragraph (1) add the following new sentence: “The Secretary shall not use the social security account numbers issued under title II of the Social Security Act as the electronic personal identifier, and shall not use any identifier used in any other Federal program as the electronic personal identifier.”.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
!CITE:
1998-42:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a complex amendment. It merely states that Social Security numbers cannot be used to identify the individuals who will be participating in this program.
!CITE:
1998-42:3
This is a common practice, obviously, today. The Social Security number is used just for about everything. As a matter of fact, many Americans think way too often.
!CITE:
1998-42:4
There are 40 Federal programs now where the Social Security number is required. Not only that, the Federal Government now has been mandating the uses of the Social Security number for similar purposes even on State programs such as obtaining our driver’s license.
!CITE:
1998-42:5
The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act.
!CITE:
1998-42:6
The Privacy Act concerns were expressed through this legislation in 1974 stating that, yes, we have overstepped our bounds, there is too much intrusiveness, and we are moving in the direction of a national identification card, something that is unknown and should be unheard of in a free society.
!CITE:
1998-42:7
We should not have an identity card to carry our papers to get jobs, open bank accounts, move about the country, but we are moving rapidly in that direction. This is a token effort to make this point and require the government to use some other identification method for this program. It can be done. There is nothing sacred about the Social Security number. The program can be run without the use of Social Security.
!CITE:
1998-42:8
I would like to just read very briefly some passages from the Privacy Act of 1974 to make my colleagues stop and think about what we are doing.
!CITE:
1998-42:9
“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
!CITE:
1998-42:10
If one does not give his Social Security number, one is in big trouble in this country. One cannot even get out of the hospital if one is born without a Social Security number, and one cannot open up a savings account for a child if one does not have a Social Security number. One is not even allowed to die at this time without a Social Security number, because one needs a Social Security number on one’s death certificate. Talk about cradle to grave.
!CITE:
1998-42:11
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual disclose his Social Security number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is listed and what uses will be made of it.” We do not have that happening. Numbers are just demanded, and too many people have complied with it, and we go along with it, but more and more Americans are getting upset with this monitoring of everything that we do through the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-42:12
Every single government program is now requiring it. Like I said, there are 40, 40 programs. Immigration, think about how the immigration programs are monitored through Social Security numbers. There have been attempts to use the Social Security number to monitor people in their voting. We do not need this. We do not need more government surveillance in promoting this kind of a program. The program can survive, can work.
!CITE:
1998-42:13
Some would argue, well, possibly, just possibly, the efficiency of the program may be diminished. That will be the argument that I will probably hear. The efficiency of the program will be diminished. Well, if this is the argument, then we are saying that we are here to protect the efficiency of the State. I see an important role for us to be here is to protect the privacy and the civil liberties of the citizen. So we are in conflict. Which should our role be, to protect privacy and civil liberties, or is it to protect the efficiency of the State?
!CITE:
1998-42:14
Well, it is not difficult for me to figure that out, and it is not like I am saying this program would not exist, it is just saying that we will put a small amount of surveillance on this where the government is not so casual in expanding its role for the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1998-42:15
In the Privacy Act of 1974, in the findings, they made a comment which I think is very important, and this is in 1974 when it was not really bad. “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.”
!CITE:
1998-42:16
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a positive amendment; this is an amendment to protect civil liberties of every American.
!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote
!DATE:
29 April 1998
!CITE:
1998-43:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.
!TITLE:
Claims Opposition Debate Time
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the legislation?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. MARTINEZ) opposed to the legislation?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legislation.
!CITE:
1998-44:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
!TITLE:
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-45:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not so much in any objection to what the goals are. The goals are very laudable. The first time I read this resolution, I was in agreement with everything until the very end. Then I had some disagreements with it.
!CITE:
1998-45:3
I have taken this time so I would have adequate time to explain my position and why I oppose this bill. Obviously, this country is facing a serious problem with drugs. As a physician, I can attest to it. We have major problems in this country, something should be done. But I thought it was necessary to take some time to point out that what we have done for 20 to 25 years has not been all that good. And I see this resolution as an endorsement of the status quo, not an introduction of one single new idea about how to approach this problem. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to try to get people to think about maybe an alternative some day that we might look at, because so far the spending of the money and the abuse of our civil liberties that has occurred with the war on drugs has not accomplished a whole lot.
!CITE:
1998-45:4
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.
!CITE:
1998-45:5
In 1937, it was decided that possibly we should restrict marijuana, even for medical use, and even then it was not assumed that this was a Federal prerogative. It was not banned, it was not outlawed. It was still assumed that it was the responsibility of the States to deal with problems of drugs and marijuana and law enforcement.
!CITE:
1998-45:6
In 1937, and I am sure some of my conservative colleagues might be interested in this because it was the great FDR who decided to impose a great tax on marijuana, putting $100 tax on a pound of marijuana, essentially making it illegal. And even today those States who would like to legalize marijuana even for the sick and dying AIDS patients and the cancer patients are not even permitted to. It is because we have carelessly assumed that all regulation and all controls and all policing activities should be done here in Washington.
!CITE:
1998-45:7
I am here just to suggest quite possibly our attack on drugs has not been correct, that we have possibly made some mistakes. Maybe we spent some money that we have not gotten our dollars’ worth. Maybe we are going in the wrong direction.
!CITE:
1998-45:8
It is estimated that we have spent over $200 billion in the last 25 years fighting drugs. And yet it is the same old thing again. Play on the emotions of the people, condemn drug usage, which I do. As I said as a physician, I know they are horrible. But as a politician and somebody in the legislature, we should think about the efficiency and the effectiveness of our laws.
!CITE:
1998-45:9
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.
!CITE:
1998-45:10
The first “whereas” of this resolution, I strongly agree with. It says, “Whereas recently revealed statistics demonstrate America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans drug-free.” This is my point. This is conceded by everyone. We are not winning this fight, so why pursue the same policies over and over again, and especially since there are some shortcomings with the policy. Not only have they not been effective, there are some serious shortcomings, shortcomings on civil liberty and property rights and other things.
!CITE:
1998-45:11
We ought to put the war on drugs in a proper perspective. Yes, it is easy to talk about a heroin addict and a crime committed and people narrowing in on one instance, but we ought to look at this in a proper manner.
!CITE:
1998-45:12
There is talk that there are 20,000 deaths with illegal drugs. But that, in the best of my estimates, includes all the violent drugs which, to me, are a consequence of the war on drugs.
!CITE:
1998-45:13
I have statistics that say there is about 6,000 people who die from overdosing and taking illegal drugs. A horrible figure. It is horrible. Nobody should be using these drugs. But let us put this in a different perspective.
!CITE:
1998-45:14
We lose 37,000 people on highways every year, government-managed highways. And 36,000 people die each year from guns. But we do not take the guns away from the innocent people because there are gun accidents and gun deaths. It is 36,000 in comparison to 6,000.
!CITE:
1998-45:15
There is one other figure that is astounding that was in the media, recorded in the media here the last couple of days. The medical profession has a responsibility here. It is estimated that we are losing 106,000 people a year. These are reports from 1994; 106,000 a year from drug reactions, legal prescription drugs coming from doctors.
!CITE:
1998-45:16
If we want to go after a problem, let us go after the highways, let us go after the guns, let us go after the drug reaction. What about alcohol? There are 200,000 deaths, approximately, from alcohol. But do we come here and propose that we go back to prohibition? No. We do not. It is a serious problem. It is really the big problem.
!CITE:
1998-45:17
Cigarette killing may be up to 400,000 a year. But if we make the suggestion that we want to go after them, then we have a President that says, yes, we will go after the kids that are taking a puff on the cigarette and apply the same rules.
!CITE:
1998-45:18
There are 10 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed each year. It is probably higher because most of those cases do not get reported. So that is a serious problem. I mean, look for serious problems.
!CITE:
1998-45:19
To dwell on the drug war and casually and carelessly violate civil liberties, as we so often do, and have confiscation and seizure of property that we just blow it off because we are fighting the drug war, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need some new ideas and new proposals on this drug war. I hope today to have time to make some of these suggestions on what we might do about the drug war.
!CITE:
1998-45:20
Former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano said, not too long ago, he was comparing the drug war to the problem of alcohol, he said: The drug war is a grain of sand compared to alcohol.
!CITE:
1998-45:21
If we look at the college issue, the overwhelming drug that is a problem on college campuses is alcohol. Yet, 99 percent of our concerns and our expression of horror is directed toward a narrower group of people; that is, on the illegal drugs.
!CITE:
1998-45:22
Why might it be that we dwell on the illegal drugs? Alcohol of course is legal, but why would it be that maybe this Congress might not be as aggressive against the abuses of alcohol and the deaths? If we have compassion, should we show less compassion to the 200,000 people dying of alcohol deaths or the 400,000 dying from cigarette deaths? But we do.
!CITE:
1998-45:23
It just happens that those who produce alcohol happen to come to Washington quite frequently. They make donations to candidates. They have a lobby. They do have a presence here in Washington. Not only those who make the alcohol, but what about the hotels or the restaurants?
!CITE:
1998-45:24
I mean, if we even thought about doing anything or saying anything about alcohol, of course we would hear from the hotels and the restaurants, and maybe rightfully so, if we argue that people have a right to have a glass of wine with their dinner in their hotel or restaurant. But the point I am trying to make is that we dwell on certain things out of proportion to its danger.
!CITE:
1998-45:25
Also, one reason why we might not talk about the tremendous abuse with alcohol is the fact that, quite possibly, a few Members of Congress actually participate in using such a thing. There are now probably 13 million people in this United States suffering from abuse or alcoholism, a serious, serious number.
!CITE:
1998-45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.
!CITE:
1998-45:27
It is failing, and we are not willing to stand up and say, hey, maybe we are doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to have another idea. Maybe we ought to have a new approach.
!CITE:
1998-45:28
I think when we talk about not only looking at this outer perspective of other problems that we have in the country, but also the serious consequences of the drug laws which we all should be concerned about because it involves property rights and civil liberty rights, maybe we can get around to the point of saying maybe could there be a new approach.
!CITE:
1998-45:29
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-46:2
Mr. Speaker, as I said, in most of our history, the control of drug abuse has never been a Federal issue. This is only very recent. This does not diminish one’s concern. It is respecting the Constitution. It is also emphasizing the fact that the more we have centralized our control and the more that we have tried to enforce the thing at the national level, the worse the problem has gotten.
!CITE:
1998-46:3
I have many conservatives say we have an educational problem, and all they want to do is throw more money at it. I cannot see how this is different. Yes, we have a major problem. But it gets worse, and all we do is throw more money at it with exactly the same programs.
!CITE:
1998-46:4
My goal today is just to suggest, just to bring it to the Congress’ attention, that possibly we are not doing the right things. If we would ever come to admitting that, then maybe we will not have to suffer the abuse of how the war on drugs goes awry.
!CITE:
1998-46:5
For instance, we have had this war on drugs, and there is no evidence even that we have been able to keep drugs out of our prisons. So maybe there is something we are doing wrong. Maybe we are treating a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Maybe the cause is not legislatively correctable. That is a possibility. Obviously there is a problem there, but we need to think about it. We need to take a consideration, and not ever to write off those of us who might say we do not endorse the current approach as being one that might not be concerned about the issue.
!CITE:
1998-46:6
Obviously I am concerned. I have five children, and I have 13 grandchildren. I am a physician. I have a great deal of concern. But I have also been involved and I have seen people who have suffered, and, therefore, I have probably a slightly different approach to the problem.
!CITE:
1998-46:7
But I do think that we ought to look for a minute at the harm done with the war on drugs. So often there are victims from the war on drugs that go unnoticed. How often have we seen on television, how often have we read in our newspaper of a drug bust with hooded FBI agents and hooded DEA agents barging into the wrong apartment and really tearing the place up, confiscating property of people who have never committed a crime?
!CITE:
1998-46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.
!CITE:
1998-46:9
Our job here is to protect the civil liberties of individuals. Yes, we ought to try to influence behavior. Yes, we ought to make laws against illegal behavior; national, when necessary, but local when the Constitution dictates it. At the rate we are going, we are making very, very little progress.
!CITE:
1998-46:10
I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues.
!CITE:
1998-46:11
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.
!CITE:
1998-46:12
I would like to suggest in closing some of the things that we can consider. First, let us consider the Constitution, for instance. We have no authority to create a Federal police force. That is not in the Constitution. So we ought to consider that. It is a State problem. It is a State law enforcement problem. Most of our history, it was dealt that way.
!CITE:
1998-46:13
I think education is very important; people who know what is going on. We should, if anything, be emphasizing the educational process. Possibly my medical background influences me into what I am going to say next; and that is, could we conceive of looking at some of this problem of addiction as a disease rather than a criminal act? We do this with alcohol. Maybe that would help the problem.
!CITE:
1998-46:14
Is it conceivable that we are looking at a symptom that the drug problem, the drug craze, is a reflection of moral values in the society?
!CITE:
1998-46:15
We cannot get rid of teenage illegitimacy by writing a national law against teenage pregnancy. We are not likely, we have not been able to get rid of drug usage, teenage drug usage, by writing national laws and coming down with the armed might of the Federal Government. So I do not think the current process is going to work.
!CITE:
1998-46:16
Kids go on drugs because they are seeking happiness, they are alone, they are in broken families. This is a problem that will not be solved by more laws and a greater war on drugs. We have 80,000 Federal policemen now carrying drugs. Character is what is needed. Laws do not create character. This does not dismiss us from expressing concern about this problem, but let us not make the problem worse.
!CITE:
1998-46:17
In 1974, Switzerland passed a law that said that the doctor could prescribe medication for addicts. I, as a physician, if an addict comes into my office and I agree to give him drugs which would support his habit, because I figure for him to go out on the street and shoot somebody for it is a little worse than me trying to talk him into a program by giving him drugs for a while, I am a criminal. I am a criminal today if I decide that somebody should use or could use marijuana if they are dying with cancer or AIDS and they are dying of malnutrition because they cannot eat. There should be a little bit of compassion in this movement.
!CITE:
1998-46:18
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.
!CITE:
1998-46:19
We have too many people on drugs, and this resolution makes my point. The war on drugs has failed. Let us do something different. Let us not pursue this any longer.
!CITE:
1998-46:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
!DATE:
5 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.
!CITE:
1998-47:2
But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful.
!CITE:
1998-47:3
I am concerned not only about the drug usage, obviously, and the fact that the war has failed, but with those things that are so negative when it comes to violation of liberties.
!CITE:
1998-47:4
The other day there was a story in the media that said there was a child suffering from an acute attack of asthma. Now, there was another asthmatic in the class, and she did what seemed to come natural to her: She went and gave her a whiff of her nebulizer and the girl immediately came out of her acute asthma attack. She was quickly apprehended under a Federal statute saying that she was disobeying the Federal law on the use of drugs.
!CITE:
1998-47:5
Now, it might be advisable to caution a young child about giving medications to another, but this was very obvious and very clear. She happened to have been a hero with the other students and she was certainly a hero for the girl she helped.
!TITLE:
Support The National Right To Work Act
!DATE:
6 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for 80 percent of Americans who support the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.
!CITE:
1998-48:2
The National Right to Work Act repeals those sections of Federal law that give union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
!CITE:
1998-48:3
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
!CITE:
1998-48:4
Passage of the National Right to Work Act would be a major step forward in ending Congress’ illegitimate interference in the labor markets and liberating America’s economy from heavy-handed government intervention. Since Congress created this injustice, we have the moral responsibility to work to end it, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-48:5
The 80 percent of Americans who support right-to-work deserve to know which Members of Congress support worker freedom. I, therefore, urge the congressional leadership, the majority of which have promised to place a National Right to Work Act on the floor, to fulfill their promise to the American people and schedule a time certain for a vote on H.R. 59.
!TITLE:
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
!DATE:
6 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 because it furthers the federal stranglehold over higher education. Instead of furthering federal control over education, Congress should focus on allowing Americans to devote more of their resources to higher education by dramatically reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before this Congress. For example, the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act (HR 2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per year in a pre-paid tuition plan without having to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling more Americans to afford college. This is just one of the many fine proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans so they can afford a higher education for themselves and/or their children. Other good ideas which I have supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher education included in last year’s budget, and the administration’s HOPE scholarship proposal, of which I was amongst the few members of the majority to champion. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.
!CITE:
1998-49:2
Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot exist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions dependent upon taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by numerous provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal funding is being used as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.
!CITE:
1998-49:3
Federal spending, and thus federal control, are dramatically increased by HR 6. The entire bill has been scored as costing approximately $101 billion dollars over the next five years; an increase of over 10 billion from the levels a Democrat Congress Congress authorize for Higher Education programs in 1991!. Of course, actual spending for these programs may be greater, especially if the country experiences an economic downturn which increases the demand for federally-subsidized student loans.
!CITE:
1998-49:4
Mr. Chairman, one particular objectionable feature of the Higher Education Amendments is that this act creates a number of new federal programs, some of which where added to the bill late at night when few members where present to object.
!CITE:
1998-49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher training.” The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,” states and localities to adopt certain methods of education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and staffers.
!CITE:
1998-49:6
As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up, some Committee members did attempt to protect the interests of the taxpayers by refusing to support authorizing this program unless the spending was offset by cuts in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who might have otherwise opposed this program supported it at the Committee mark-up because of the offset.
!CITE:
1998-49:7
While having an offset for the teacher training program is superior to authorizing a new program, at least from an accounting perspective, supporting this program remains unacceptable for two reasons. First of all, just because the program is funded this year by reduced expenditures is no guarantee the same formula will be followed in future years. In fact, given the trend toward ever-higher expenditures in federal education programs, it is likely that the teacher training program will receive new funds over and above any offset contained in its authorizing legislation.
!CITE:
1998-49:8
Second, and more importantly, the 10th amendment does not prohibit federal control of education without an offset, it prohibits all programs that centralize education regardless of how they are funded. Savings from defunded education programs should be used for education tax cuts and credits, not poured into new, unconstitutional programs.
!CITE:
1998-49:9
Another unconstitutional interference in higher education within HR 6 is the provision creating new features mandates on institutes of higher education regarding the reporting of criminal incidents to the general public. Once again, the federal government is using its funding of higher education to impose unconstitutional mandates on colleges and universities.
!CITE:
1998-49:10
Officials of the Texas-New Mexico Association of College and University Police Departments have raised concerns about some of the new requirements in this bill. Two provisions the association finds particularly objectionable are those mandating that campuses report incidents of arson and report students referred to disciplinary action on drug and alcohol charges. These officials are concerned these expanded requirements will lead to the reporting of minor offenses, such as lighting a fire in a trash can or a 19-year-old student caught in his room with a six-pack of beer as campus crimes, thus, distorting the true picture of the criminal activity level occurring as campus.
!CITE:
1998-49:11
The association also objects to the requirement that campus make police and security logs available to the general public within two business days as this may not allow for an intelligent interpretation of the impact of the availability of the information and may compromise an investigation, cause the destruction of evidence, or the flight of an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location, date, and time for a crime may identify victims against their will in cases of sexual assault, drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The informed views of those who deal with campus crime on a daily basis should be given their constitutional due rather than dictating to them the speculations of those who sit in Washington and presume to mandate a uniform reporting system for campus crimes.
!CITE:
1998-49:12
Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be put “on display.” For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a claim of sexual assault “* * * through the university, rather than the county prosecutor’s office, so that she could avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *” Assaulting the privacy rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral.
!CITE:
1998-49:13
This bill also contains a section authorizing special funding for programs in areas of so-called “national need” as designated by the Secretary of Education. This is little more than central planning, based on the fallacy that omnipotent “experts” can easily determine the correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies teaches that a bureaucrat in Washington cannot determine “areas of national need.” The only way to know this is through the interaction of students, colleges, employers, and consumers operating in a free-market, where individuals can decide what higher education is deserving of expending additional resources as indicated by employer workplace demand.
!CITE:
1998-49:14
Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 expand the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education by increasing federal control over higher education, as well as creating a new teacher training program. This bill represents more of the same, old “Washington knows best” philosophy that has so damaged American education over the past century. Congress should therefore reject this bill and instead join me in working to defund all unconstitutional programs and free Americans from the destructive tax and monetary policies of the past few decades, thus making higher education more readily available and more affordable for millions of Americans.
!TITLE:
National Police State
!DATE:
12 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
!CITE:
1998-50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
!CITE:
1998-50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a “rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.
!CITE:
1998-50:4
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.
!CITE:
1998-50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
!CITE:
1998-50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.
!CITE:
1998-50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-50:8
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1998-50:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
!CITE:
1998-50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
!CITE:
1998-50:11
As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
!CITE:
1998-50:12
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
!TITLE:
FDIC Problem
!DATE:
13 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-51:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Chairman’s amendment and in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
!CITE:
1998-51:2
There are two positions that one could take on this. We could have zero integration, which this amendment would do; or we could think about the market. The market would just allow it to exist.
!CITE:
1998-51:3
Earlier, somebody quoted Hamilton as being opposed to an integration of commerce in banking. Well, of course, at that particular time in history we had the Jeffersonians, and they were strongly in support of the market and even against central banking.
!CITE:
1998-51:4
So I think, considering all things, that I cannot get my 100 percent, and we certainly do not want zero. We need to move in a direction, so I would say this very modest request is very justified.
!CITE:
1998-51:5
I think this FDIC insurance is something we should be concerned about, but that is a different issue for the moment. I object to that, but I do not believe this will solve the FDIC problem.
!CITE:
1998-51:6
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.
!CITE:
1998-51:7
This is the size of the Glass-Steagall Act, a few pages, in order to solve a problem that did not exist. But we have been living with this for all these years. And now, over these several years, we have been trying to solve the problem. Now, this is the size of the solution. This is H.R. 10, this is the version of the Committee on Commerce as well as the version of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that went to the Committee on Rules.
!CITE:
1998-51:8
We need to look at the fundamental cause of our problems and not jump off a cliff and do the wrong thing. I strongly support the Roukema amendment.
!TITLE:
The Indonesia Crisis
!DATE:
19 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-52:1
BACKGROUND
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei stock average is still down 60% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing Southeast Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stock market “crash” — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe and then to America should not be summarily dismissed.
!CITE:
1998-52:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY
Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.
!CITE:
1998-52:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1998-52:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
!CITE:
1998-52:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all crony “capitalism.”
!CITE:
1998-52:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION
One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion) is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. It’s duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.
!CITE:
1998-52:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.
!CITE:
1998-52:8
Blame is misplaced. Rarely is the Central Bank and paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes to zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen, now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.
!CITE:
1998-52:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the IMF and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF bailout. IMF policy on aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.
!CITE:
1998-52:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allows crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.
!CITE:
1998-52:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the blood in the streets of Jakarta — soon to spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with it.
!CITE:
1998-52:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to “take care” of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls results whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
!CITE:
1998-52:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED
The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened the Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, but it is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know; the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevails in Indonesia?
!CITE:
1998-52:14
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
!CITE:
1998-52:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989 and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, and establishing sound monetary policy has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out, that won’t work, is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
!CITE:
1998-52:16
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
!CITE:
1998-52:17
REFUSAL
In the approximately 8 months since the crisis hit Indonesia there has been no serious look at the underlying cause — monetary inflation brought about by a central bank. Nor has any serious thought gone into the internationalization of credit as United States exports of billions of dollars, and thus our own inflation, to most nations of the world who hold these dollars in reserve and use them to further inflate their own currencies. Our huge negative trade balance and foreign debt is not considered by conventional wisdom to be relevant to the Asian currency problems, yet undoubtedly it is. True reform to deal with the growing worldwide crisis can only be accomplished by us first recognizing the underlying economic errors that caused the current crisis.
!CITE:
1998-52:18
The philosophy of the free market, holds a lot of answers, yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding Southeast Asian crisis.
!CITE:
1998-52:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing the same bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.
!CITE:
1998-52:20
MESSAGE
What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do all the countries of the world, we are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to deliberately destroy it, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
!CITE:
1998-52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.
!TITLE:
United Nations Money Came From Defense Department
!DATE:
20 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I would like to compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor.
!CITE:
1998-53:2
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. One, the other side of the aisle has mentioned that this is only a small amount. We are just introducing this idea. We are only giving a couple of dollars now. It reminds me of the arguments in 1913, let us have an income tax, but it is only going to be a fraction of 1 percent. We know what happened. There are plans for what they are doing. This is the time to stop it.
!CITE:
1998-53:3
I think another point that we ought to make is, how did they get any money already? They got it from the Defense Department. We did not even appropriate the money. They have already started it. They have used American taxpayers’ money without a direct appropriation from this Congress, and it is about time we stopped that type of legislation. That is the point. Where did the money come from? The Defense Department. It goes over into the United Nations for meddling, meddling overseas. It is taken away, literally, from defense.
!CITE:
1998-53:4
We have a problem in this country for national defense. We have Air Force people who do not get flying time. Our men are not trained. We do not have the right equipment. We continuously spend all our money overseas, endlessly getting involved in Bosnia and Somalia, and wherever.
!CITE:
1998-53:5
I think it is policy that needs to be addressed. It is the policy that allows our administration to do this, because there is too much complicity in allowing the United Nations to assume our sovereignty.
!CITE:
1998-53:6
That is the point here. The American people deserve better protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more quickly than ever.
!CITE:
1998-53:7
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy.
!CITE:
1998-53:8
It is up to the U.S. Congress to do something about that; that is, to take away the funding. This is a great amendment. I cannot conceive of anybody voting against this amendment and pretending that this is only a little bit.
!TITLE:
The Indonesia Crisis
!DATE:
22 May 1998
!CITE:
1998-54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei (Tokyo) stock average is still down 57% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing East Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stocke market “crash” here — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed.
!CITE:
1998-54:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY
Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air. New money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something nearly all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.
!CITE:
1998-54:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of a correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influence the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1998-54:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
!CITE:
1998-54:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all “crony capitalism.”
!CITE:
1998-54:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION
One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion), is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. Its duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.
!CITE:
1998-54:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.
!CITE:
1998-54:8
Blame is misplace. Rarely is the Central Bank and irredeemable paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes toward zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen who are now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.
!CITE:
1998-54:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF-led bailout. IMF policy only aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.
!CITE:
1998-54:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allow crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.
!CITE:
1998-54:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the discontent, with blood in the streets of Jakarta, soon spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively-sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with marshal law.
!CITE:
1998-54:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to take care of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls result whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
!CITE:
1998-54:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED
The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened. The Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the United States is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know: the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevail in Indonesia?
!CITE:
1998-54:14
The United States has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military does not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world — and pretend we have all the answers? Putting aside the question of whether there is proper authority or not, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The IMF is seen as an extension of the United States and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military that with the demonstrators. No government, even the questionable ones, likes to see any dissolution of governmental power. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not as if the U.S. Government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
!CITE:
1998-54:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989, and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, including the establishment of a sound monetary policy, has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out will work. It won’t work — it is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
!CITE:
1998-54:16
The Indonesian Government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not as good as gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, with its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board tied to the U.S. dollar is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
!CITE:
1998-54:17
REFUSAL
In the approximately eight months since the crisis hit Indonesia, there has been no serious look at the underlying cause: monetary inflation brought about by a central bank. Nor has any serious thought gone into the internationalization of credit as United States exports of billions of dollars, and thus our own inflation, to most nations of the world which hold these dollars in reserve and use them to further inflate their own currencies. Our huge negative trade balance and foreign debt is not considered by conventional wisdom to be relevant to the Asian currency problems, yet undoubtedly it is. True reform to deal with the growing worldwide crisis can only be accomplished by us first recognizing the underlying economic errors that caused the current crisis.
!CITE:
1998-54:18
The philosophy of the free market holds a lot of answers — yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding East Asian crisis.
!CITE:
1998-54:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing a similar bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.
!CITE:
1998-54:20
MESSAGE
What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do almost all the countries of the world. We are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar, will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to destroy it deliberately, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
!CITE:
1998-54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit
!TITLE:
Can’t Vote For Amendment
!DATE:
4 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-55:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-55:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Today we are having a debate on a very serious problem that does deserve our attention. We can do this by supporting this rule.
!CITE:
1998-55:3
I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.
!CITE:
1998-55:4
Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.
!CITE:
1998-55:5
This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was changed, I now am unable to vote for it.
!CITE:
1998-55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.
!CITE:
1998-55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.
!CITE:
1998-55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.
!CITE:
1998-55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.
!CITE:
1998-55:10
Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely make things worse.
!TITLE:
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
!DATE:
10 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not a complicated amendment. It merely redesignates the priorities of governments as they line up in the receiving end of a bankruptcy. These are unsecured debts.
!CITE:
1998-56:2
Basically the way the law states now and the way the bill is written is that the IRS is the top government agency that is going to receive the money, and then the State and then the local government. My suggestion in my amendment is very simple and very clear and makes a very strong philosophic point, is why should we hold the IRS in such high esteem? Why should they be on top of the list? Why should the money leave the local districts and go to Washington? Why should it go into the coffers of the IRS, funding programs that are basically unconstitutional when there are so many programs that we are not doing and take it out of our school districts?
!CITE:
1998-56:3
If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:4
Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:5
One of the arguments used against this amendment is, “Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.” Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:6
Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-56:7
In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed.
!CITE:
1998-56:8
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2
!DATE:
10 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-57:2
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond by saying I certainly do recognize responsibility of the U.S. Congress in dealing with national legislation dealing with bankruptcy and that bankruptcy laws should be uniform and fair. But this does not preclude us from thinking about the particulars of a piece of legislation designating the importance of the different governmental bodies, so everything I say about emphasizing local government over Federal Government is certainly legitimate and does not contradict in any way the notion that we should not deal with this at all because certainly we have this authority to do so.
!CITE:
1998-57:3
And it still remains to be seen with much of a cost at all involved here; I happen to think not very much, but I would like to emphasize once again the importance of dealing with cutting spending rather than always resorting to say how do we pay something, pay for something, by merely raising taxes elsewhere if we happen to work in a benefit on a program such as this.
!CITE:
1998-57:4
So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.
!TITLE:
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
!DATE:
11 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country’s national police force and further “justify” the federal Justice Department’s intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications.
!CITE:
1998-58:2
Mr. Chairman, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding the notion of federal crimes and paving the way for a deluge of federal criminal justice activity. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federally “criminalizing” all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a process by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on child-related sexual crime irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
!CITE:
1998-58:3
In the name of the politically popular cause of protecting children against sex crimes, the Members of Congress will vote on whether to move the Nation further down the path of centralized-Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress hoping to gain political favor with those embracing some politically popular cause. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 is no exception.
!CITE:
1998-58:4
Who, after all, can stand on the house floor and oppose a bill which is argued to make the world safer for children with respect to crimes? It is a sad commentary when members of this body only embrace or even mention federalism when it serves their own political purposes and, at the same time, consciously ignore federalism’s implications for these politically popular causes. It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All that now seems to matter is that Congress pass a new law.
!CITE:
1998-58:5
Crimes committed against children (as well as adults) are a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world. I know there are few things more tragic than crimes committed against young people. In fact, the types of crimes this bill attempts to federally punish are among the most despicable criminal acts committed. Undoubtedly, strong measures and penalties need to be imposed to deter and punish these criminal actors. Nevertheless, the threshold question in Congress must always be: “under what authority do we act?” Should we cease to concern ourselves about the Constitution in all that we do and moved by emotion speak only of vague theoretical outcomes?
!CITE:
1998-58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.
!CITE:
1998-58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.
!CITE:
1998-58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.
!CITE:
1998-58:9
I too find most despicable the criminal acts this bill attempts to make federal crimes, but under the U.S. Constitution criminal law jurisdiction lies with the States. This is why I oppose yet another step toward a national police state. And because I fear the bill’s implications regarding federal monitoring of voice, mail and data communications, I cannot support H.R. 3494.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
16 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform has been a major topic for months on the House floor and, I understand, will continue to be a major debate. The last time the Congress has passed any major reforms dealing with campaigning was in the 1970s, and every problem that we had back then we have today, only it is much worse. Today, in order to comply with the law, we fill out tens of thousands of pages of forms, there is total misunderstanding of what the rules and regulations are, there are numerous fines being levied against many Members and many candidates, there are many inaccuracies put into the record mainly because a lot of people cannot even understand the rules and regulations, and I would not be surprised if just about everybody who ever filled out a financial reform at one time or the other inadvertently had some inaccuracies. All the challenges to these records have always been done by opponents and usually politicized, and it has not been motivated for the best of reasons.
!CITE:
1998-59:2
New reforms are now being proposed, and I predict they will be no more successful than the numerous rules and regulations that we imposed on candidates in the 1970s. The reason I say this is that we are treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptom, of course, is very prevalent. Everybody knows there is a lot of big money that influences politics. I understand that there is $100 million a month spent by the lobbyists trying to influence our votes on the House floor and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence our elections. So some would conclude, therefore, that is the case, we have to regulate the money, the money is the problem.
!CITE:
1998-59:3
But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller government, less influence of the government on everything that we do in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is always being involved.
!CITE:
1998-59:4
Not only domestically, but Congress is endlessly involved in many affairs overseas. We are involved by passing out foreign aid, getting involved in programs like the IMF and World Bank. We are interfering in internal affairs militarily in over a hundred countries at the present time. So there is a tremendous motivation for people to come here and try to influence us. They see it as a good investment.
!CITE:
1998-59:5
More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an incentive to invest.
!CITE:
1998-59:6
Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one’s money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse.
!CITE:
1998-59:7
Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon.
!CITE:
1998-59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
!CITE:
1998-59:9
Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.
!TITLE:
Individuals with Disabilities Act
!DATE:
16 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Res. 399, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs, should be this Congress’ top priority.
!CITE:
1998-60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.
!CITE:
1998-60:3
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K–12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child’s education.
!CITE:
1998-60:4
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children’s special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child’s parent.
!CITE:
1998-60:5
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America’s schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Res. 399 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.
!TITLE:
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
!DATE:
17 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have long held that the real victims of U.S. trade policy, and specifically of our various trade embargoes, are American citizens who hope to sell goods abroad, most especially our agricultural producers. The intended victims of sanctions are corrupt foreign rulers but they always find a way to get goods from our competitors and when they fail to do so they simply pass along any suffering to their internal political opponents.
!CITE:
1998-61:2
But, as I said, somebody is negatively affected. A recent issue of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s “Farm Bureau News” contains a headline story which does a fabulous job of explaining how these embargoes adversely affect our American Farmers and Ranchers. In this front page story the Farm Bureau News masterfully details the true impact of trade embargoes.
!CITE:
1998-61:3
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a very rural, agriculturally-based district. My constituents are well aware of the importance of opening export markets for America’s agricultural producers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place in the RECORD this story from the Farm Bureau News in hopes that people in the Administration, as well as in this Congress will begin to reconsider destructive embargo policies which only harm our nation’s farmers and other producers including my constituents.
!CITE:
1998-61:4
AG TAKES BIGGEST HIT FROM EMBARGOES
Trade sanctions and embargoes for the purpose of social reform or other reasons hurt American farmers and ranchers more than any other sector of the economy, Farm Bureau told a House Agriculture subcommittee last week.
!CITE:
1998-61:5
“Farm Bureau strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts,” said Ron Warfield, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau. “We believe that opening trading systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability.”
!CITE:
1998-61:6
President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan after those countries detonated nuclear devices. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R– Ore.) and ranking minority member Charlie Stenholm (D–Texas) have urged Clinton to exempt food and agricultural commodities from those sanctions. Pakistan is an important market for U.S. agricultural products, ranking third in purchases of U.S. wheat.
!CITE:
1998-61:7
Sens. Dick Lugar (R–Ind.), Pat Roberts (R– Kan.), Larry Craig (R–Idaho) and Max Baucus (D–Mont.) have also asked Clinton to exclude agricultural exports from the sanctions.
!CITE:
1998-61:8
Warfield, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, told the panel that when sanctions are imposed, agriculture typically bears the brunt through lost sales and gains a reputation as an unreliable supplier. While American agriculture loses through sanctions and embargoes, its toughest competitors win by picking up those markets.
!CITE:
1998-61:9
Warfield noted that when the United States placed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, American farmers lost $2.3 billion in farm exports. He said the effects continue to be felt.
!CITE:
1998-61:10
“When the United States cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, other suppliers — France, Canada, Australia and Argentina — stepped in,” Warfield said. “They expanded their sales to the Soviet Union, ensuring that U.S. sanctions had virtually no economic impact. Russia still appears to restrict purchases of American wheat, fearing the United States may again use food exports as a foreign policy weapon.”
!CITE:
1998-61:11
Just the threat of sanctions can provoke trading partners into a retaliatory stance and threaten U.S. agricultural exports, the farm leader pointed out.
!CITE:
1998-61:12
Warfield said Farm Bureau supports a bill (H.R. 3654) by Re. Tom Ewing (R–Ill.) that would prevent selective agricultural embargoes. The legislation, he said, would prevent useless embargoes that destroy American export markets while creating opportunities for other countries. Warfield said engagement with other nations, not sanctions and embargoes, should be the preferred option.
!CITE:
1998-61:13
“The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade,” Warfield said, “Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change — not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors.”
!TITLE:
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
!DATE:
18 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the Conference Report of the Parent and Student Saving Account Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite having been an original cosponsor, and having been quite active in seeking support, of the original House bill. I remain a strong supporter of education IRAs, which are a good first step toward restoring parental control of education by ensuring parents can devote more of their resources to their children’s education. However, this bill also raises taxes on businesses and expands federal control of education. I cannot vote for a bill that raises taxes and increases federal power, no matter what other salutary provisions are in the legislation.
!CITE:
1998-62:2
I certainly support the provision allowing parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the excessive tax burden imposed on America’s families by Congress. Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America’s hardworking, taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these same parents!
!CITE:
1998-62:3
I also support the provisions extending the exclusion of funds received from qualified state tuition programs, and excluding monies received from an employer to pay for an employee’s continuing education from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans to spend more of their resources on education, rather than hand their hard-earned money over to the taxman.
!CITE:
1998-62:4
Returning control over educational resources to the American people ought to be among Congress’ top priorities. In fact, one of my objections to this bill is that is does not go nearly far enough in returning education dollars to parents. This is largely because the deposit to an education IRA must consist of after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRAs would be so much more beneficial if parents could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing contributions to be made from pretax dollars would provide a greater incentive for citizens to contribute to education IRAs for others’ underprivileged children.
!CITE:
1998-62:5
Furthermore, education IRAs are not the most effective means of returning education resources to the American people. A much more effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at public, private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax credits will remove large numbers of families from the tax roles!
!CITE:
1998-62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!
!CITE:
1998-62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government” (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children’s education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation.
!CITE:
1998-62:8
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet, this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.
!CITE:
1998-62:9
Moreover, because we have no practical way of knowing how many Americans will take advantage of the education IRAs, or the other education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative to those who will have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is quite possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation would have increased revenues to the Treasury by $24 million over the next eight years!
!CITE:
1998-62:10
It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment! It is hard to see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646 — helping America’s families!
!CITE:
1998-62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based “experts.”
!CITE:
1998-62:12
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program will move America toward a national curriculum since it creates a federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with federal standards the goal of education. I ask my colleagues how does moving further toward a national curriculum restore parental control of education?
!CITE:
1998-62:13
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.
!CITE:
1998-62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.
!CITE:
1998-62:15
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.
!CITE:
1998-62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.
!CITE:
1998-62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.
!TITLE:
Drug-Free Workplace Act
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.
!CITE:
1998-63:2
Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1999 thus further shifting the cost burden from the irresponsible drug user to the taxpayer. Allowing the cost of drug use to fall on the irresponsible drug user rather than allowing that user to socialize his or her costs upon the innocent taxpayer would be a worthwhile step in the right direction. The dangerous socialization of costs is a consequence of various Federal actions.
!CITE:
1998-63:3
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading — in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing — increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.
!CITE:
1998-63:4
If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same flawed policy. That is, because government “must” pay the health costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes, government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket.
!CITE:
1998-63:5
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.
!CITE:
1998-63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.
!CITE:
1998-63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been a lot of discussion on the House floor dealing with campaign finance reform.
!CITE:
1998-64:2
I have spoken out on this issue, and once again I want to make some comments about how I see this problem and what we might do about it. Also I want to mention an amendment that I will be bringing up.
!CITE:
1998-64:3
I suspect we will be talking about campaign finance reform for a couple more months. I see this somewhat differently than others. Others see that all we have to do is regulate the money and we are going to solve all our problems. But all governments are prone to be influenced by special interests. That is the nature of government.
!CITE:
1998-64:4
So the smaller government that you have, the less influence you have and the less effort there is made to influence the government. But when you have a big government, there will be a lot of people and a lot of groups that will want to influence government, and that is where I see the problem.
!CITE:
1998-64:5
Twenty-five years ago in the 1970s, after Watergate, the Congress wrote a lot of rules and regulations. Hundreds of candidates have filled out forms and have done all kinds of things that have been very complicated but have achieved very little. The problem is every bit as bad as it was before, and most people admit that.
!CITE:
1998-64:6
I think there is a good reason for that. They were addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. And the cause is, of course, that big government is involved in every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our economic lives, and also around the world, influencing almost every government in the world. So not only is there an incentive for business people to come here to influence our government, but there are labor groups that come to influence our government. We have international groups and other governments coming to influence us. And until that is settled, we can rest assured that we will continue to have these problems.
!CITE:
1998-64:7
But there is another problem that I want to address, and that is the decreased interest in campaigns and elections. Thirty years ago we would have 30 some percent of the people would turn out in the primary elections. Today it is less than 20 percent. It is a steady decline. There is good reason for this because as government gets bigger and as money becomes more influential, and money talks, the little people who have their desires and their voices unheard and want to be heard, they feel very frustrated. So it is understandable and expected that there will be lower and lower turnout in our elections. That is exactly what is happening.
!CITE:
1998-64:8
Now, why is this the case? Is it just because they are apathetic? I do not think so. I think a lot of people make wise choices and say it does not make a lot of difference; my vote does not really count because so much money is influencing what happens in Washington with legislation. And yet we have rules and laws throughout the country that make it just about impossible for anybody outside the ordinary two-party system to be represented.
!CITE:
1998-64:9
Twenty percent of the people do not bother registering because of the frustration, 20 percent of the people who do register, register as Independents. So that leaves about 60 percent of the vote split between Republicans and Democrats, each getting 30 percent. They are a minority. The people who are really shortchanged are the majority, that 40 percent who feel unrepresented and very frustrated about the situation.
!CITE:
1998-64:10
How does this come about? It just happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to control every legislative body in the country, every State legislative body. And, therefore, they write rules and regulations and have high fees for people getting on ballots, and you do not have any competition. And there is lack of interest, and there is a lot of frustration.
!CITE:
1998-64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.
!CITE:
1998-64:12
I would like to quote from Richard Winger, who writes a letter called the Ballot Access News. He cites one of the worst examples. He says Florida now requires 242,000 valid signatures to get a minor party or Independent candidate on the ballot of any State-wide office other than President. Only one signature is permitted on each petition sheet. He goes on. And the payment that is required is $8,250.
!CITE:
1998-64:13
This is what needs to be changed. I have an amendment to the bill that will change this. I hope all my colleagues will pay attention to it.
!TITLE:
Every Currency Crumbles
!DATE:
24 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that James Grant has made a public warning regarding monetary crises. In an Op-Ed entitled “Every Currency Crumbles” in The New York Times on Friday, June 19, 1998, he explains that monetary crises are as old as money. Some monetary systems outlive others: the Byzantine empire minted the bezant, the standard gold coin, for 800 years with the same weight and fineness. By contrast, the Japanese yen, he points out, is considered significantly weak at 140 against the U.S. dollar now to warrant intervention in the foreign exchange markets but was 360 as recently as 1971. The fiat U.S. dollar is not immune to the same fate as other paper currencies. As Mr. Grant points out, “The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.”
!CITE:
1998-65:2
Mr. James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, a financial publication, and editorial director of Grant’s Municipal Bond Observer and Grant’s Asia Observer. He has also authored several books including the biographical “Bernard Baruch: Adventures of a Wall Street Legend”, the best financial book of the year according to The Financial Times “Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken”, “Minding Mr. Market: Ten Years on Wall Street with Grant’s Interest Rate Observer” and “The Trouble with Prosperity: The Loss of Fear, the Rise of Speculation, and the Risk to American Savings”. He is a frequent guest on news and financial programs, and his articles appear in a variety of publications.
!CITE:
1998-65:3
[From the New York Times, June 19, 1998]
EVERY CURRENCY CRUMBLES
(By James Grant)

Currencies, being made of paper, are highly flammable, and governments are forever trying to put out the fires. Thus a half decade before the bonfire of the baht, the rupiah and the yen, there was the conflagration of the markka, the lira and the pound. The dollar, today’s global standard of value, was smoldering ominously as recently as 1992.
!CITE:
1998-65:4
Monetary crises are almost as old as money. What is different today is the size of these episodes. It isn’t every monetary era that features recurrent seismic shifts in the exchange values of so-called major currencies. On Wednesday morning, after coordinated American and Japanese intervention, the weakling yen became 5 percent less weak in a matter of hours.
!CITE:
1998-65:5
People with even a little bit of money ought to be asking what it’s made of. J.S.G. Boggs, an American artist, has made an important contribution to monetary theory with his lifelike paintings of dollar bills. So authentic do these works appear — at least at first glance, before Mr. Boggs’ own signature ornamentation becomes apparent — that the Secret Service has investigated him for counterfeiting. “All money is art,” Mr. Boggs has responded.
!CITE:
1998-65:6
Currency management is a political art. The intrinsic value of a unit of currency is the cost of the paper and printing. The stated value of a unit of currency derives from the confidence of the holder in the promises of the issuing government.
!CITE:
1998-65:7
It cannot undergird confidence that the monetary fires are becoming six- and seven-alarmers. Writing in 1993 about the crisis of the European Rate Mechanism (in which George Soros bested the Bank of England by correcting anticipating a devaluation of the pound), a central bankers’ organization commented: “Despite its geographical confinement to Europe, it is probably no exaggeration to say that the period from late 1991 to early 1993 witnessed the most severe and widespread foreign exchange market crisis since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System 20 years ago.” But the European crisis has been handily eclipsed by the Asian one.
!CITE:
1998-65:8
Monetary systems have broken down every generation or so for the past century. The true-blue international gold standard didn’t survive World War I. Its successor, a half-strength gold standard, didn’t survive the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods regime — in which the dollar was convertible into gold and the other, lesser currencies were convertible into the dollar — didn’t survive the inflationary period of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
!CITE:
1998-65:9
Today, the unnamed successor to Bretton Woods is showing its years. The present-day system is also dollar-based, but it differs from Bretton Woods in that the dollar is no longer anchored to anything. It is defined as 100 cents and only as 100 cents. Its value is derived not from a specified weight of gold, as it was up until Aug. 15, 1971, but from the confidence of the market.
!CITE:
1998-65:10
For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands.
!CITE:
1998-65:11
However, as Madison Avenue knows as well as Wall Street, brand loyalties are fickle. In the early 1890’s, the United States Treasury was obliged to seek a bailout from the Morgan bank. During the great inflation of the 1970’s, Italian hotel clerks, offered payments in dollars, rolled their eyes. The yen, today reckoned dangerously weak at 140 or so to the dollar, was 360 as recently as 1971. The tendency of the purchasing power of every paper currency down through the ages is to regress. Is there any good reason that the dollar, universally esteemed today, should be different?
!CITE:
1998-65:12
None. Certainly, the deterioration of the American balance-of-payments position doesn’t bode well for the dollar’s long-term exchange rate. Consuming more than it produces, the United States must finance the shortfall. And it is privileged to be able to pay its overseas bills with dollars, the currency that it alone can legally produce. Thailand would be a richer country today if the world would accept baht, and nothing but baht, in exchange for goods and services. It won’t, of course. America and the dollar are uniquely blessed.
!CITE:
1998-65:13
Or were. France and Germany have led the movement to create a pan-European currency, one that would compete with the dollar as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. The euro, as the new monetary brand is called, constitutes the first serious competitive threat to the dollar since the glory days of the pound sterling.
!CITE:
1998-65:14
In a world without a fixed standard of value, a currency is strong or weak only in relation to other currencies. The dollar’s “strength,” therefore, is a mirror image of — for example — the yen’s “weakness.” It is not necessarily a reflection of the excellence of the American economy.
!CITE:
1998-65:15
And no degree of excellence can forestall a new monetary crisis indefinitely. Some monetary systems are better than others, and some last longer than others, but each and every one comes a cropper. The bezant, the standard gold coin of the Byzantine empire, was minted for 800 years at the same weight and fineness. The gold may still be in existence (in fact — no small recommendation for gold bullion — it probably is), but the empire has fallen.
!CITE:
1998-65:16
After the 1994 crisis involving the Mexican peso, the world’s financial establishment vowed to stave off a recurrence. Even as the experts delivered their speeches, however, Asian banks were overlending and Asian businesses were overborrowing; the credit-cum-currency eruption followed in short order. Naturally, officials and editorialists are now calling for even better fire prevention systems.
!CITE:
1998-65:17
But “stability,” the goal so sought after, is ever unattainable. The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
!TITLE:
Internet Tax Freedom Act
!DATE:
23 June 1998
!CITE:
1998-66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: “A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.” The bill’s name, “Tax Freedom,” also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington — the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated “when someone in government mentions the word ‘fairness’, grab your wallet and run for the hills.”
!CITE:
1998-66:2
I am, nevertheless, always suspicious when a recently-crafted bill comes to the House floor not only having bypassed the Committee process but without any advance warning. Such was the case with this bill. Moreover, this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules which does not allow for amendments and which limits the debate time to twenty minutes on each side. I, in fact, was denied an opportunity to speak by those managing the limited time allowable under this process.
!CITE:
1998-66:3
However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state’s right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the “proper” form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by “grandfathering” their taxes while excluding other States’ rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity.
!CITE:
1998-66:4
If the intended purpose of the legislation was simply to keep the internet tax free, a three paragraph bill would have been adequate to accomplish this. Instead, H.R. 4105 is significantly more complex. It, in fact, creates a new 30-member federal commission tasked with, among other things:
!CITE:
1998-66:5
Examining model State legislation relating to taxation of transactions using the Internet and Internet access, including uniform terminology, definitions of the transactions, services, and other activities that may be subject to State and local taxation, procedural structures and mechanisms applicable to such taxation, and a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between States regarding matters involving multiple taxation;
!CITE:
1998-66:6
Examining a simplified system for administration and collection of sales and use tax for remote commerce, that incorporates all manner of making consumer payments, that would provide for a single statewide sales or use tax rate (which rate may be zero), and would establish a method of distributing to political subdivisions within each State their proportionate share of such taxes, including an examination of collection of sales or use tax by small volume remote sellers only in the State of origin;
!CITE:
1998-66:7
Examining ways to simplify the interstate administration of sales and use tax on remote commerce, including a review of the need for a single or uniform tax registration, single or uniform tax returns, simplified remittance requirements, and simplified administrative procedures; and
!CITE:
1998-66:8
Examining the need for an independent third party collection system that would utilize the Internet to further simplify sales and use tax administration and collection;
!CITE:
1998-66:9
These H.R. 4105-established “duties” suggest that the Commission’s real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of “Tax Freedom” as the bill’s name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet.
!TITLE:
Issue Ads
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
!CITE:
1998-67:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE) for offering it.
!CITE:
1998-67:3
Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order to protect this right.
!CITE:
1998-67:4
There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people’s money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.
!CITE:
1998-67:5
So I think it is a very important amendment and we should pay close attention to this to make sure that we pass this amendment. The problem with attacking big money without knowing why there is big money involved in politics I think is the problem that we face. Big money is a problem. They are spending $100 million a month to lobby us in the Congress and hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign, but nobody ever talks about why they are doing it.
!CITE:
1998-67:6
There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved.
!CITE:
1998-67:7
But what is wrong with people spending their own money to come here and fight for their freedom? What if they are a right-to-life group? What if they are a pro-gun-ownership group? What if they are a pro-property-ownership group? Why should they not be able to come and spend the money like the others have?
!CITE:
1998-67:8
It just seems like they have been able to become more effective here in the last few years, and it seems like now we have to clamp down on them because they have an effective way to come here and fight for some of their freedoms back again.
!CITE:
1998-67:9
So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems.
!CITE:
1998-67:10
So I think openness and reporting requirements to let people know where we are getting the money, let the people decide if we are taking too much from one group. But to come down hard and attack on individual liberty and the right for people to spend their money and the right for the people to distribute voters guides, I cannot say see how that is going to solve any problems. I mean, what are we doing here? I think it is total foolishness.
!CITE:
1998-67:11
So I strongly endorse this amendment, and let us hope we can pass this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
!CITE:
1998-67:12
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Campbell
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-68:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. DeLay
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-69:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Doolittle
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-70:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Campbell
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-71:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Doolittle
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-72:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE).
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Ganske
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-73:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. DeLay
!DATE:
14 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY).
!TITLE:
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing an establishment of Federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses.
!CITE:
1998-75:2
This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
!CITE:
1998-75:3
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver’s license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy–Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver’s license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment.
!CITE:
1998-75:4
My fellow colleagues, make no doubt about this, this is a national I.D. card. We do not need it. Please join me in an effort to stop it.
!TITLE:
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
!CITE:
1998-76:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendment rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
!CITE:
1998-76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.
!CITE:
1998-76:4
The establishment of a national standard for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is forced to conform their birth certificates or drivers’ licenses to federal standards, it is unlikely they will not comply when failure to conform to federal specifications means none of that state’s residents may get a job, receive Social Security, or even leave the state by plane? Thus, rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing states into complying with federal dictates.
!CITE:
1998-76:5
Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
!CITE:
1998-76:6
I ask my colleagues what would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to America would soon have the power to demand that all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID?
!CITE:
1998-76:7
If the disapproval of the Founders is not sufficient to cause my colleagues to support this legislation, then perhaps they should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people.
!CITE:
1998-76:8
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I thank Congressman BARR for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
!TITLE:
Child Custody Protection Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-77:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
!CITE:
1998-77:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, because it is seriously flawed. Although well motivated, the problem we are dealing with is the breakdown of the American family, respect for life and abortion, not too much freedom to travel between States.
!CITE:
1998-77:3
Having delivered nearly 4,000 babies in my three decades of medical practice and having seen the destructiveness of abortion, I strongly agree that legalized abortion is the most egregious of all current social policies. It clearly symbolizes the moral decline America has experienced in the last 30 years.
!CITE:
1998-77:4
However, Federal law restricting interstate travel, no matter how well intended, will serve no useful purpose, will not prevent abortions, and, indeed, will have many unintended consequences.
!CITE:
1998-77:5
It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into effect at approximately the same time that the Department of Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be transporting a teenager.
!CITE:
1998-77:6
There is already a legal vehicle for dealing with this problem. Many States currently prohibit adults from taking underage teenagers across State lines for the purpose of marriage. States have reciprocal agreements respecting this approach. This is the proper way to handle this problem.
!CITE:
1998-77:7
Most importantly, this bill fails to directly address the cause of the problem we face regarding abortion, which is the absurdity of our laws permitting the killing of an infant 1 minute before birth, or even during birth, and a doctor getting paid for it, while calling this same action murder 1 minute after birth.
!CITE:
1998-77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.
!CITE:
1998-77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
!CITE:
1998-77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
!CITE:
1998-77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1998-77:12
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1998-77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
!CITE:
1998-77:14
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to a point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
!CITE:
1998-77:15
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 3682.
!TITLE:
National Right To Work Act
!DATE:
15 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place!
!CITE:
1998-78:2
Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress, only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states’ rights.
!CITE:
1998-78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.
!CITE:
1998-78:4
No wonder the overwhelming majority of the American people support the National Right to Work Act, as shown both by polling results and by the many postcards and petitions my office has received asking for Congressional action on this bill.
!CITE:
1998-78:5
I once again thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this bill.
!TITLE:
Exchange Stabilization Fund
!DATE:
16 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
!CITE:
1998-79:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it. It is detrimental to the people.
!CITE:
1998-79:3
The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest, just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight. The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions, probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.
!CITE:
1998-79:4
Where did the money come from? It came from confiscation, not through taxation, but confiscating gold from the American people, revaluing the gold, taking the net profits, putting it into the Exchange Stabilization Fund, as well as the initial financing of the IMF.
!CITE:
1998-79:5
They tried to reassure us and say, well, this is not an injury to our appropriations process. We do not appropriate money. We do not lose money. Well, that is precisely the problem. We are supposed to have responsibility. It is not the kind of amendment I want.
!CITE:
1998-79:6
We should be talking about this in terms of a free society. Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the expense of the American taxpayers?
!CITE:
1998-79:7
This amendment, if we want to give a lot of foreign aid away, this does not preclude it, it just slows us up a little bit and makes us think about it.
!CITE:
1998-79:8
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.
!CITE:
1998-79:9
This is why we need more openness. Because, ultimately, this is a threat to the dollar. The dollar, when it is devalued, it hurts the American taxpayer. It is a hidden tax. When we devalue the dollar, we are spending money indirectly. We take away wealth and purchasing power from the American people. And it is a sinister tax. It is the most sinister of all taxes.
!CITE:
1998-79:10
That is why the Exchange Stabilization Fund should either be abolished or put on the appropriations process. If we cannot do that or will not do that, we have to at least pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and say, yes.
!CITE:
1998-79:11
If we are going to give away $250 million per country for propping up a foreign currency or foreign country or propping up some banks that made loans overseas or propping up our competitors to our own industries, we have to at least know about it.
!CITE:
1998-79:12
I do not think this is much of an amendment. The fact that the President threatens to veto this bill just because we are acting responsibly, this is just a small step in the right direction. I see no reason why we cannot pass this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-79:13
We talk a lot about supporting the currency. On a day-to-day basis, $1.6 trillion are transferred over the wire service. There is not one reputable economist in this country that I know of that really defends currency intervention as being productive and being able to change the course of events. Because although $38 billion is a lot of money and intervention does cause sudden shocks, causes some bond traders, currency traders to lose money quickly, it has no long-term effect.
!CITE:
1998-79:14
So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists. There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.
!CITE:
1998-79:15
If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be responsible for our acts.
!TITLE:
Matagorda Police 100 Club
!DATE:
17 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, when we go on the August break I will attend a number of events back in my district and one which I will be very proud to attend will be the Matagorda County 100 Club Awards banquet. This group provides assistance to the families of law enforcement personnel who are slain on the job.
!CITE:
1998-80:2
I can think of no better example of how people can freely work together to provide assistance to those who are in need, and who are most deserving of the help of their neighbors. Officers slain in duty give their lives to protect the liberties of the citizens. Our Nation has a strong tradition of local law enforcement, a tradition which would fail without the courage and willingness of men and women to put their lives on the line by working as state and local law enforcement agents.
!CITE:
1998-80:3
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the 100 Clubs and the brave men and women who serve as local law enforcement agents.
!TITLE:
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
!DATE:
20 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject H.R. 3874, a bill reauthorizing the Women’s, Infant, and Children’s (WIC) program and other childhood nutrition programs, and the flawed redistributionist, welfare state model that lies behind this bill. Although the goals of this legislation are noble, the means toward achieving the goals embodied therein are unconstitutional and ineffective.
!CITE:
1998-81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.
!CITE:
1998-81:3
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of my colleagues, understand that private charities are also much better able to target assistance to the truly needy than government programs, which are burdened with bureaucratic rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed to protect the “due process” rights of recipients, which cannot be adequately changed to meet unique individual circumstances. Thus, many people who are genuinely needy do not receive needed help. In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Private charities can also be more effective because they do not have to fulfill administrative requirements, such as the WIC program’s rebate system, which actually divert resources from the needy.
!CITE:
1998-81:4
Private charities are also able to place an emphasis upon reformation of personal behavior while not imposing the controls on personal life that government programs, such as WIC, impose on the program recipients. When a pregnant woman signs up to receive WIC vouchers, she is trading away a large amount of her personal freedom. Her choices of where to shop will be restricted to WIC-approved vendors and her choice of what foods to buy will be restricted to those foods which match the WIC nutrition specifications. WIC recipients are also required to participate in WIC parenting and nutrition classes.
!CITE:
1998-81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!
!CITE:
1998-81:6
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their products included in this program reveals the extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare. Many corporations have made a tidy profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding their competitors in the process. For example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal government is the largest purchaser of infant formula in the nation.
!CITE:
1998-81:7
According to the Congressional Research Service, food vendors participating in WIC received 9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75% of the total funds spent on the WIC program! This fiscal year, producers of food products approved by the federal government for purchase by WIC participants are expected to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars! Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my office to discuss WIC were not advocates for the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons for corporate interests!
!CITE:
1998-81:8
Any of my colleagues who doubt that these programs serve the interests of large corporations should consider that one of the most contentious issues debated at Committee mark-up was opposition to an attempt to allow USDA to purchase non-quote peanuts (currently the only peanuts available for sale are farmers who have a USDA quota all other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US) for school nutrition programs. Although this program would have saved the American taxpayers $5 million this year, the amendment was rejected at the behest of supporters of the peanut lobby. A member of my staff, who appropriately asked why this amendment could not pass with overwhelming support, was informed by a staffer for another member, who enthusiastically supports the welfare state, that the true purpose of this program is to benefit producers of food products, not feed children.
!CITE:
1998-81:9
The main reason supporters of a free and moral society must oppose this bill is because federal welfare programs crowd out the more efficient private charities for two reasons. First, the taxes imposed on the American people in order to finance these programs leave taxpayers with fewer resources to devote to private charity. Secondly, the welfare state erodes the ethic of charitable responsibility as citizens view aiding the poor as the government’s role, rather than a moral obligation of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-81:10
The best way to help the poor is to dramatically cut taxes thus allowing individuals to devote more of their own resources to those charitable causes which better address genuine need. I am a cosponsor of HR 1338, which raises the charitable deduction and I believe Congress should make awakening the charitable impulses of the American people by reducing their tax burden one of its top priorities. In fact, Congress should seriously consider enacting a dollar-per-dollar tax credit for donations to the needy. This would do more to truly help the disadvantaged than a tenfold increase in spending on the programs in HR 3874.
!CITE:
1998-81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.
!TITLE:
The Patient Privacy Act
!DATE:
21 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
!CITE:
1998-82:2
As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
!CITE:
1998-82:3
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
!CITE:
1998-82:4
Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
!CITE:
1998-82:5
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
!CITE:
1998-82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
!CITE:
1998-82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1998-82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
!CITE:
1998-82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
!TITLE:
Patient Protection Act
!DATE:
24 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1998-83:2
I rise in support of the rule. Under the circumstances, the rule is very fair. It offers an opportunity for our side to vote for the Patient Protection Act as well as a vote for the opposition. I think that is quite fair, so I strongly support the rule.
!CITE:
1998-83:3
I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues one particular part of our bill that I think is very important and addresses a problem I see as being very serious.
!CITE:
1998-83:4
In 1996, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill allowed for a national identifier and a national data bank to control all our medical records at a national level. This is very dangerous. In a bill that is called the Patient Protection Act, obviously the best thing we can do is protect patient privacy. If we do not, we interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and this is a disaster.
!CITE:
1998-83:5
This whole concept of a national identifier — the administration is already working to establish this — is dangerous and we must do whatever is possible to stop it.
!CITE:
1998-83:6
I compliment the authors of this bill to prohibit this national medical data bank.
!TITLE:
Patient Protection Act of 1998
!DATE:
24 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I cannot vote for the Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250). However, I would first like to express my support for two of the bill’s provisions, relating to Medical Savings Accounts and relating to the proposed national health ID.
!CITE:
1998-84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”
!CITE:
1998-84:3
While I was not here in 1996 when the medical ID was authorized, it is my understanding that this provision was part of a large bill rushed through Congress without much debate. I am glad that Congress has decided to at least take a second look at this proposal and its ramifications. I am quite confident that, after Congress hears from the millions of Americans who object to a national ID, my colleagues will do the right thing and pass legislation forbidding the federal government from instituting a “uniform standard health identifier.”
!CITE:
1998-84:4
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress is addressing the subject of health care in America, for the American health care system does need reform. Too many Americans lack access to quality health care while millions more find their access to medical care blocked by a “gatekeeper,” an employee of an insurance company or a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) who has the authority to overrule the treatment decisions of physicians!
!CITE:
1998-84:5
An an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience, I find it outrageous that any insurance company bureaucrat could presume to stand between a doctor and a patient. However, in order to properly fix the problem, we must understand its roots. The problems with American health care coverage are rooted in the American tax system, which provides incentives for employers to offer first-dollar insurance benefits to their employees, while providing no incentives for individuals to attempt to control their own health care costs. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that those paying the bill would eventually seize control over personal health care choices as a means of controlling costs.
!CITE:
1998-84:6
Because this problem was created by distortions in the health care market that took control of the health care dollar away from the consumer, the best solution to this problem is to put control of the health care dollar back into the hands of the consumer. We also need to rethink the whole idea of first-dollar insurance coverage for every medical expense, no matter how inexpensive. Americans would be more satisfied with the health care system if they could pay for their routine expenses with their own funds, relying on insurance for catastrophic events, such as cancer.
!CITE:
1998-84:7
An excellent way of moving toward a health care system where the consumer is in charge is through Medical Savings Accounts (MSA’s). I enthusiastically endorse those provisions of this bill that expand access to MSA’s. It may be no exaggeration to say that MSA’s are vital to preserving the private practice of medicine.
!CITE:
1998-84:8
MSA’s provide consumers the freedom to find high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. MSA’s allow consumers to benefit when they economize in choosing health care so they will be more likely to make informed health care decisions such as seeking preventive care and, when possible, negotiate with their providers for the lowest possible costs. Most importantly, MSA’s are the best means available to preserve the patient’s right to choose their doctor and the treatment that best meets their needs, free from interference by an insurance company or an HMO.
!CITE:
1998-84:9
Mr. Speaker, all those concerned with empowering patients should endorse H.R. 4250’s provisions lifting all caps on how many Americans may purchase an MSA and repealing federal regulations that discourage Americans from using MSA’s. For example, a provision in the tax code limits the monthly contribution to the MSA to one-twentieth of the MSA’s yearly amount. Thus, MSA holders have a small portion of their yearly contribution accessible to them in the early months of the year. The Patient Protection Act allows individuals to make the full contribution to their MSA at any time of the year, so someone who establishes an MSA in January does not have to worry if they get sick in February.
!CITE:
1998-84:10
This legislation also allows both employers and employees to contribute to an employee’s MSA. It lifts the arbitrary caps on how one can obtain MSA’s and expands the limits on the MSA deductible. Also it provides that possession of an MSA satisfies all mandated benefits laws as long as individuals have the freedom to purchase those benefits with their MSA.
!CITE:
1998-84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.
!CITE:
1998-84:12
Perhaps the biggest danger these regulations pose is ratification of the principle that guaranteeing a patients’ access to physicians is the proper role for the government, thus opening the door for further federal control of the patient-physician relationship. I ask my physician-colleagues who support this regulation, once we have accepted the notion that federal government can ensure patients have access to our services, what defense can we offer when the government places new regulations and conditions on that access?
!CITE:
1998-84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.
!CITE:
1998-84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.
!TITLE:
Offers An Amendment
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 1
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-86:1
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
!CITE:
1998-86:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a perfecting amendment, it is not in the nature of a substitute, and that has been cleared in the Committee on Rules.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk designated it as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!CITE:
1998-86:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, both amendments that I have should be perfecting amendments, and if permissible, I ask unanimous consent that they both be accepted as such.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman is amending the Shays-Meehan amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted by the rules.
!CITE:
1998-86:4
Mr. PAUL. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
!CITE:
1998-86:5
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-86:6
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that deals with equity and fairness, so I would expect essentially no opposition to this.
!CITE:
1998-86:7
It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the ballot.
!CITE:
1998-86:8
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
!CITE:
1998-86:9
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943. There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943, because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment would correct this.
!CITE:
1998-86:10
Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.
!CITE:
1998-86:11
Now, this is very important also because it increases interest and increases turnout. Today, turnout has gone down every year in the last 20 or 30 years, there has been a steady decline in interest. This amendment would increase the interest and increase the turnout.
!CITE:
1998-86:12
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election, where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this, making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be accepted.
!CITE:
1998-86:13
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 2
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-87:2
My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.
!CITE:
1998-87:3
For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics. They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.
!CITE:
1998-87:4
If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial to the process.
!CITE:
1998-87:5
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 3
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-88:2
The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.
!CITE:
1998-88:3
Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures. A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major candidate.
!CITE:
1998-88:4
There is something distinctly unfair about this. This is un-American. We have the authority to do it. This is the precise time to do it. We are dealing with campaign reform, and they are forcing these minor candidates to spend unbelievable amounts of money. They are being excluded. They are 42 percent of the people in this country. They are the majority, when we divide the electorate up. They deserve representation, too.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. SHAYS:

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
!CITE:
1998-88:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
!TITLE:
Offers An Amendment
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 1
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-90:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-90:2
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months, years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot. Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50 ballots, and they are purposely excluded.
!CITE:
1998-90:3
This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers’ money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies for taxpayers’ funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be allowed in the debate.
!CITE:
1998-90:4
I cannot think of anything that could boost the interest in the debates more. Fewer and fewer people are watching debates. There was the lowest turnout, the lowest listening audience to the debates in the last-go around. It was the lowest since we have had these debates on television.
!CITE:
1998-90:5
Forty-two percent of the people turned out and were interested in the debates prior to the election in 1992, and we had a major candidate, Ross Perot. Of course, the only reason he was able to achieve a significant amount of attention was because he happened to be a billionaire. That is not fair. In 1996, they did a poll right before the election to find out who was paying attention. We were getting ready to pick the President of the United States. It dropped to 24 percent.
!CITE:
1998-90:6
If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government, we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment.
!CITE:
1998-90:7
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Ballot Access — Part 2
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is always interesting that when we have an appropriate amendment that seems to catch the attention of the Members, that it is probably not the appropriate time to bring it up, and that we should hold hearings and do it some other day.
!CITE:
1998-91:2
We have been spending months, and I believe both sides of the aisle have been very sincere in their efforts to clarify and to improve our election process. I think this would be a tremendous benefit to the congressional candidates as well, because there would be more interest. People are not even listening to the debates. If they are not even willing to listen to the presidential debates, how can they get interested in Senate races and in House races?
!CITE:
1998-91:3
The rating of the debates in 1996 was the lowest in 36 years. The Vice-Presidential debate, we cannot even get people to listen to the Vice-Presidential debates. It had dropped off 50 percent from 1992. In 1992, there was more interest. It is because we happened to have a billionaire interested, and he was able to stimulate some people in some debates.
!CITE:
1998-91:4
All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority under our laws to do this.
!CITE:
1998-91:5
So I would strongly suggest if Members are fair-minded and think they would like more interest, or if they want to continue the way we are going now, we are going to have less and less people interested. People are really tired of it. The American people do not understand this debate, but they do understand they would like to have somebody speak up for them.
!CITE:
1998-91:6
Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being allowed to appear.
!CITE:
1998-91:7
This does not mean those candidates more on the right would happen to be in the debate, or more on the left. It would open it up. This is fair-minded, it is proper, it is a good place to do it. It is a chance to vote on it, and I ask for support on this amendment.
!CITE:
1998-91:8
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote
!DATE:
30 July 1998
!CITE:
1998-92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
!TITLE:
Banking Regulations
!DATE:
4 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-93:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
!CITE:
1998-93:2
Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this bill. I do not support legislation casually here, and have thought this through. I voted against this bill the first time it went through, and I was one of a few. But it is a better bill now than it was before.
!CITE:
1998-93:3
I am a supporter of the free market, and I do not believe you can achieve equity by raising taxes and putting more regulations on those who do not have regulations and who do not have taxes.
!CITE:
1998-93:4
For this reason, I argued the case that instead of equity being achieved by taxing credit unions or making it more difficult for them to survive with more regulations, the best thing we should do now is talk about at least the smaller banks that compete with credit unions, to lower their taxes, get rid of their taxes and get rid of the regulation.
!CITE:
1998-93:5
Precisely because we dealt with the CRA function in the Senate is the reason that I can support this bill. CRA does great deal of harm to the very people who claim they want CRA to be in the bill. CRA attacks the small, marginal bank that is operating in communities that have poor people in them. But if you compel them to make loans that are not prudent and to make loans that are risky, you are doing precisely the opposite of what we should do for these companies.
!CITE:
1998-93:6
We should work to lower taxes, not only on the credit unions, and lower regulations. We must do the same thing for the banks. We must lower the taxes and get rid of these regulations in order for the banks to remain solvent and that we do not have to bail the banks out like we have in the past. But the regulations do not achieve this.
!CITE:
1998-93:7
This is a bill that I think really comes around to achieving and taking care of a problem and protecting everybody interested. But I am quite convinced that this is still not a fair bill, a fair approach, because we have not yet done enough for our community bankers. We must eventually apply these same principles of less regulations and less taxes to the small banker. Then we will provide a greater service to the people that are their customers, and we will certainly be allowing the poor people a greater chance to achieve a loan.
!CITE:
1998-93:8
Since I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions and was the first one in this congress to introduce multiple common bonds for credit unions in the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, I am happy to speak in support of the passage of H.R. 1151 here today. Having argued forcefully against the imposition of new regulations imposed upon credit unions, I congratulate the senate for not increasing the regulatory burden on credit unions in an attempt to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions.
!CITE:
1998-93:9
A better approach is to lead the congress toward lower taxes and less regulation — on credit unions, banks and other financial institutions. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the senate, takes us one step in the right direction of less government regulation restricting individual choice. We must continue on the path of fewer regulations and lower taxes.
!CITE:
1998-93:10
These regulations add to the costs of operations of financial institutions. This cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher interest rates and additional fees. These regulations impose a disproportionate burden on smallers institutions, stifles the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector, and contributes to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. Consumers need additional choices, not congressionally-imposed limits on choices.
!CITE:
1998-93:11
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulation can only be larger . . . The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
!CITE:
1998-93:12
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. For each $1 million in asset, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.
!CITE:
1998-93:13
We need to work together now to reduce the regulatory burden on all financial institutions. The IBAA study identified the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. We need to reduce the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks.
!CITE:
1998-93:14
Let’s all work together now, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, to reduce their regulatory burden. Credit unions have demonstrated that fewer regulations contribute to lower costs passed on to consumers and greater consumer choice. Let’s extend that model for banks and other financial institutions.
!TITLE:
Honoring 4-H Programs And Gold Star Recipients
!DATE:
4 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Brazoria County 4–H will hold an awards program on the 14th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-94:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Deidrea Harris, Josh Weber, Amanda Tacquard, and Allison Sauer. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.
!TITLE:
Gold Star Awards
!DATE:
5 August 1998
!CITE:
1998-95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Matagorda County 4-H will hold an awards program on the 20th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I have, in the past, pointed out how important an organization 4-H truly is for those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities. As I have said in the past Mr. Speaker, one of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. I believe that this mission is so critical that, earlier this year, I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4-H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorney we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-95:2
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Kim Evans, Courtney Wallis and Lindsey Kubecka. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.
!TITLE:
English Language Fluency Act
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal Government’s role in education.
!CITE:
1998-96:2
I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people in those communities.
!CITE:
1998-96:3
The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.
!CITE:
1998-96:4
Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control be restored.
!CITE:
1998-96:5
In order to restore parental control of education I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for elementary and secondary education expenses. This bill places parents back in charge and is thus the most effective education reform bill introduced in this Congress.
!CITE:
1998-96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.
!TITLE:
Worldwide Financial Crisis
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the largest of all bubbles is now bursting. This is a worldwide phenomenon starting originally in Japan 9 years ago, spreading to East Asia last year, and now significantly affecting U.S. markets.
!CITE:
1998-97:2
All financial bubbles are currency driven. When central banks generously create credit out of thin air speculation, debt, and malinvestment result. Early on the stimulative effect is welcomed and applauded as the boom part of the cycle progresses. But illusions of wealth brought about by artificial wealth creation end when the predictable correction arrives. Then we see the panic and disappointment as wealth is wiped off the books.
!CITE:
1998-97:3
These events only occur when governments and central banks are given arbitrary authority to create money and credit out of thin air. Paper money systems are notoriously unstable; and the longer they last, the more vulnerable they are to sudden and sharp downturns.
!CITE:
1998-97:4
All countries of the world have participated in this massive inflationary bubble with the dollar leading the way. Being a political and economic powerhouse, U.S. policy and the dollar has had a major influence throughout the world and, in many ways, has been the engine of inflation driving world financial markets for years.
!CITE:
1998-97:5
But economic law dictates that adjustments will be made for all the bad investment decisions based on erroneous information about interest rates, the money supply, and savings.
!CITE:
1998-97:6
The current system eventually promotes overcapacity and debt that cannot be sustained. The result is a slump, a recession, or even a depression. When the government makes an effort to prevent a swift, sharp correction, the agony of liquidation is prolonged and deepened. This is what is happening in Japan and other Asian countries today. We made the same mistake in the 1930s.
!CITE:
1998-97:7
A crisis brought on by monetary inflation cannot be aborted by more monetary inflation or the IMF bailouts favored by the American taxpayer. It may at times delay the inevitable, but eventually, the market will demand liquidation of the malinvestment, excessive debt, and correction of speculative high prices as we have seen in the financial markets.
!CITE:
1998-97:8
All this could have been prevented by a sound monetary system, one without a central bank that has monopoly power over money and credit and pursues central economic planning. My concern is profound. The retirement and savings of millions of Americans are jeopardized. Economic growth could be reversed sharply and quickly as it already has in the Asian countries. Budget numbers will need to be sharply revised.
!CITE:
1998-97:9
The Federal Reserve hints at lower interest rates which means more easy credit. This may be construed as a positive for the market, but it only perpetuates a flawed monetary system.
!CITE:
1998-97:10
Protecting the dollar is our job here in the Congress, and we are not paying much attention. Although turmoil elsewhere in the world has given a recent boost to the dollar, signs are appearing that the dollar, unbacked by anything of real value, is vulnerable. Setting a standard for the dollar with real value behind it can restore trust to the system and will become crucial in solving our problems, soon to become more apparent.
!CITE:
1998-97:11
The sooner we understand the nature of the problem and start serious discussions on how to restore soundness to our money the sooner we can secure the savings, investments, and retirements of all Americans.
!TITLE:
POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas
!DATE:
10 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 13 I will have the distinct pleasure of being the keynote speaker at the opening ceremonies for POW/MIA Recognition week in Matagorda County, Texas.
!CITE:
1998-98:2
This event will be sponsored by Matagorda County Veterans Services as a part of POW/ MIA Recognition Week. Mr. Speaker, as a United States Air Force veteran I am well aware of the sacrifices which brave young men are required to make during times of war. Perhaps no better example of these sacrifices can be found than those endured by Prisoners of War and those Missing In Action. From “Hanoi Hilton” to “Saving Private Ryan” we have seen the dramatic horrors that war brings, but behind the stories, beyond the silver screen, there are real Private Ryan’s who never do make it home. And there are families broken, lives affected and communities touched, by the real sacrifices of the real heroes who fight America’s wars.
!CITE:
1998-98:3
I believe that no young man or woman has ever entered the military hoping to face combat, but most answer the call because they believe in the liberties which our nation was founded upon, and they see our nation as a beacon of liberty. It is to these young people that I wish to bring honor and it is to those who have become Missing, or are held Prisoner, to whom I believe this nation must pledge ongoing fealty. Specifically, I would like to memorialize U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Parks, from Matagorda County, who died while in captivity in Vietnam.
!CITE:
1998-98:4
Mr. Speaker, our nation has suffered a great burden as a result of the wars of this century, in some instances it has nearly been torn apart by these wars, but none have suffered more than those who are missing, and their families, many of whom still hope against hope that they will one day return, either to resume lives or to be granted a proper burial. Our nation still has some 93,000 individuals who are unaccounted for, some of whom are believed to be POW’s even now during a time of relative peace. Mr. Speaker, I believe we owe it to these men, and to their families, to get a full accounting for every person which this nation has sent abroad. I believe we owe it to our nation to bring each and every one of them home.
!CITE:
1998-98:5
With the opening of archives from the former Soviet Union we have seen evidence of how young American servicemen were allowed to become political chess pieces for a totalitarian regime. It is due to the efforts of groups such as Matagorda County Veterans Services that we can honestly say “You Are Not Forgotten” to those who have sacrificed so much. And it is critical that we keep these memories forever etched in our minds so that we might also recall the mantra “never again.” Never again should Americans be forced to face the brutalities of war, such as those faced in Prisoner of War camps, and never again should we allow brave Americans to go missing in action.
!TITLE:
Head Start Program
!DATE:
14 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 2206, which reauthorizes the Head Start program, as well as the Community Services Block Grant program and the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). While the goals of Head Start and the Community Services Block Grant program are certainly noble, the means these programs use to accomplish these goals (confiscating monies from one group of citizens and sending them to another group of citizens in the form of federal funding for Washington-controlled programs) are immoral and ineffective. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to fund any programs concerning child-rearing or education. Under the constitutional system, these matters are left solely in the hands of private citizens, local government, and the individual states.
!CITE:
1998-99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.
!CITE:
1998-99:3
When the federal government becomes involved in funding a program such as Head Start, it should at least respect local autonomy by refraining from interfering with the ability of local communities to fashion a program that suits their needs. After all, federal funding does not change the fact that those who work with a group of children on a daily basis are the best qualified to design a program that effectively serves those children. Therefore, I must strongly object to the provisions in S. 2206 that requires the majority of Head Start classroom teachers to have an Associate or Bachelors degree in early childhood education by 2003. This provision may raise costs and/or cause some good Head Start teachers to lose their positions simply because they lack the credentials a Washington-based “expert” decided they needed to serve as a Head Start instructor.
!CITE:
1998-99:4
Mr. Speaker, if programs such as Head Start where controlled by private charities, their staffers would not have to worry about diverting valuable resources away from their mission to fulfill the whims of Congress.
!CITE:
1998-99:5
I am also disappointed that S. 2206 does not contain the language passed by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce freeing Head Start construction from the wasteful requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon not only drives up construction costs, it effectively ensures that small construction firms, many of which are minority-owned, cannot compete for federal construction contracts. Repealing Davis-Bacon requirement for Head Start construction would open up new opportunities for small construction companies and free up millions of taxpayers dollars that could be used to better America’s children.
!CITE:
1998-99:6
Congress should also reject S. 2206 because it reauthorizes the Low Income Heating and Energy Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is an unconstitutional transfer program which has outlived its usefulness. LIHEAP was instituted in order to help low-income people deal with the high prices resulting from the energy crisis of the late seventies. However, since then, home heating prices have declined by 51.6% residential electricity prices have declined by 25% and residential natural gas prices have declined by 32.7%. Furthermore, the people of Texas are sending approximately $43 million more taxpayer dollars to Washington for LIHEAP than they are receiving in LIHEAP funds. There is no moral or constitutional justification for taking money from Texans, who could use those funds for state and local programs to provide low-income Texans with relief from oppressive heat, to benefit people in other states.
!CITE:
1998-99:7
Another provision in S. 2206 that should be of concern to believers in a free society is the provision making “faith-based organizations” eligible for federal funds under the Community Services Block Grant program. While I have little doubt that the services offered by churches and other religious institutions can be more effective in producing social services than many secular programs, I am concerned that allowing faith-based organizations’ access to federal taxpayer dollars may change those organizations into lobbyists who will compromise their core beliefs rather than risk alienating members of Congress and thus losing their federal funds. Thus, allowing faith-based organizations to receive federal funds may undermine future attempts to reduce federal control over social services, undermine America’s tradition of non-establishment of religion, and weaken the religious and moral component of the programs of “faith-based providers.” It would be a tragedy for America if religious organizations weakened the spiritual aspects that made their service programs effective in order to receive federal lucre.
!CITE:
1998-99:8
Since S. 2206 furthers the federal government’s unconstitutional role of controlling early childhood education by increasing federal micro-management of the Head Start program, furthers government intrusions into religious institutions and redistributes income from Texans to citizens of other states through the LIHEAP program, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead join me in defunding all unconstitutional programs and cutting taxes so the American people may create social service programs that best meet the needs of low-income children and families in their communities.
!TITLE:
The Failed War On Drugs
!DATE:
15 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am a physician, I am a parent and I am a grandparent, and I am convinced that drugs are a very, very serious problem in this country, not only the illegal ones, but the legal ones as well. Just last year, 106,000 people died from the legal use of drugs. We are drug dependent, on the illegal drugs and on the legal tranquilizers. That is a major problem.
!CITE:
1998-100:2
But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea. It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.
!CITE:
1998-100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.
!CITE:
1998-100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.
!CITE:
1998-100:5
I have a program designed, which I cannot present here, that will change our policy and attack the drugs in a much different way.
!TITLE:
Dollars To The Classroom Act
!DATE:
18 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-101:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government’s control over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress should reject this bill.
!CITE:
1998-101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-101:3
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies are spent “in the classroom,” (a term not defined in the act) and report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the Federal Government for their management of educational programs.
!CITE:
1998-101:4
For all its flaws, the original version of H.R. 3248 at least restored some measure of state control of education because it placed no restrictions on a state’s use of funds. It was, thus, a pure block grant. However, this bill does not even give states that level of discretion as H.R. 3248 has been amended to restrict the uses to which a state can apply its block grants.
!CITE:
1998-101:5
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example of “mandate federalism” where states are given flexibility to determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states the authority to select a particular form of federal management of education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!
!CITE:
1998-101:6
The federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!
!CITE:
1998-101:7
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
!CITE:
1998-101:8
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-101:9
Madam Chairman, those who doubt the likelihood of the above scenario should remember that the Education Committee could not even pass the initial block grant without “giving in” to the temptation to limit state autonomy in the use of education funds because “Congress cannot trust the states to do the right thing!” Given that this Congress cannot pass a clean block grant, who can doubt that some future Congress will decide that the States need federal “leadership” to ensure they use their block grants in the correct manner, or that states should be forced to use at least a certain percentage of their block grant funds on a few “vital” programs.
!CITE:
1998-101:10
I would also ask those of my colleagues who claim that block grant will lead to future reductions in expenditures how likely is this will occur when Congress had to increase expenditures in order to originally implement the block grant programs?
!CITE:
1998-101:11
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers’ dollars to spend as they wish.
!CITE:
1998-101:12
It will be claimed that this bill does not increase spending, it merely funds education spending at the current level by adding an adjustment to inflation to the monies appropriated for education programs in Fiscal Year 1999. However, predicting the rate of inflation is a tricky business. If, as is very likely, inflation is less than the amount dictated by this bill, the result will be an increase in education spending in real dollar terms. Still, that is beside the point, any spending increase, whether real or nominal, ought to be opposed. CBO reports that H.R. 3248 provides “additional authorization of “9.5B.”
!CITE:
1998-101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
!CITE:
1998-101:14
Rather than shifting responsibility for the management of federal funds, Congress should defund all unconstitutional programs and dramatically cut taxes imposed upon the American people, thus enabling American families to devote more of their resources to education. I have introduced a bill, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816) to provide parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for education expenses. This bill directly empowers parents, not bureaucrats or state officials, to control education and is the most important education reform idea introduced in this Congress.
!CITE:
1998-101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.
!TITLE:
Revamping The Monetary System
!DATE:
24 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of fellow colleagues to the issue of three things that have happened in the last couple of days.
!CITE:
1998-102:2
Today it was recorded in our newspapers and it was a consequence of a meeting held last night having to do with a company that went bankrupt, Long-Term Capital Management. I believe this has a lot of significance and is something that we in the Congress should not ignore.
!CITE:
1998-102:3
This is a hedge fund. Their capitalization is less than $100 billion, but, through the derivatives markets, they were able to buy and speculate in over $1 trillion worth of securities, part of the financial bubble that I have expressed concern about over the past several months.
!CITE:
1998-102:4
But last night an emergency meeting was called by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was not called by the banks and the security firms that were standing to lose the money, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called an emergency meeting late last night. Some of the members of this meeting, the attendees, came back from Europe just to attend this meeting because it was of such a serious nature. They put together a package of $3.5 billion to bail out this company.
!CITE:
1998-102:5
Yesterday also Greenspan announced that he would lower interest rates. I do not think this was an accident or not coincidental. It was coincidental that at this very same time they were meeting this crisis, Greenspan had to announce that, yes indeed, he would inflate our currency, he would expand the money supply, he would increase the credit, he would lower interest rates. At least that is what the markets interpreted his statement to mean. And the stock market responded favorably by going up 257 points.
!CITE:
1998-102:6
On September 18th, the New York Times, and this is the third time that that has come about in the last several weeks, the New York Times editorialized about why we needed a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the countries involved in this financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-102:7
Yesterday, on the very same day, there was another op-ed piece in the New York Times by Jeffrey Garten, calling again for a worldwide central bank, that is, a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the ailing economies of the world.
!CITE:
1998-102:8
The argument might go, yes, indeed, the financial condition of the world is rather severe and we should do something. But the financial condition of the world is in trouble because we have allowed our Federal Reserve System, in deep secrecy, to create credit out of thin air and contribute to the bubble that exists. Where else could the credit come from for a company like Long-Term Capital Management? Where could they get this credit, other than having it created and encouraged by a monetary system engineered by our own Federal Reserve System?
!CITE:
1998-102:9
We will have to do something about what is happening in the world today, but the danger that I see is that the movement is toward this worldwide Federal Reserve System or worldwide central bank. It is more of the same problem. If we have a fiat monetary system, not only in the United States but throughout the world, which has created the financial bubble, what makes anybody think that creating more credit out of thin air will solve these problems? It will make the problems much worse.
!CITE:
1998-102:10
We need to have a revamping of the monetary system, but certainly it cannot be saved, it cannot be improved, by more paper money out of thin air, and that is what the Federal Reserve System is doing.
!CITE:
1998-102:11
I would like to remind my colleagues that when the Federal Reserve talks about lowering interest rates, like Mr. Greenspan announced yesterday, or alluded to, this means that the Federal Reserve will create new credit. Where do they get new credit and new money? They get it out of thin air. This, of course, will lower interest rates in the short run and this will give a boost to a few people in trouble and it will bail out certain individuals.
!CITE:
1998-102:12
When we create credit to bail out other currencies or other economies, yes, this tends to help. But the burden eventually falls on the American taxpayer, and it will fall on the value of the dollar. Already we have seen some signs that the dollar is not quite as strong as it should be if we are the haven of last resort as foreign capital comes into the United States. The dollar in relationship to the Swiss frank has been down 10 percent in the last two months. In a basket of currencies, 15 currencies by J.P. Morgan, it is down 5 percent in one month.
!CITE:
1998-102:13
So when we go this next step of saying, yes, we must bail out the system by creating new dollars, it means that we are attacking the value of the money. When we do this, we steal the value of the money from the people who already hold dollars.
!CITE:
1998-102:14
If we have an international Federal Reserve System that is permitted to do this without legislation and out of the realms of the legislative bodies around the world, it means that they can steal the value of the strong currencies. So literally an international central bank could undermine the value of the dollar without permission by the U.S. Congress, without an appropriation, but the penalty will fall on the American people by having a devalued dollar.
!CITE:
1998-102:15
This is a very dangerous way to go, but the movement is on. As I mentioned, it has already been written up in the New York Times. George Soros not too long ago, last week, came before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services making the same argument. What does he happen to be? A hedge fund operator, the same business as Long-Term Capital Management, coming to us and saying, “Oh, what you better do is protect the system.”
!CITE:
1998-102:16
Well, I do not think the American people can afford it. We do have a financial bubble, but financial bubbles are caused by the creation of new credit from central banks. Under a sound monetary system you have a commodity standard of money where politicians lose total control. Politicians do not have control and they do not instill trust into the paper money system.
!CITE:
1998-102:17
But we go one step further. The Congress has reneged on its responsibility and has not maintained the responsibility of maintaining value in the dollar. It has turned it over to a very secretive body, the Federal Reserve System, that has no responsibility to the U.S. Congress. So I argue for the case of watching out for the dollar and argue for sound money, and not to allow this to progress any further.
!TITLE:
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
!DATE:
25 September 1998
!CITE:
1998-103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is asked to vote to approve H.R. 2621, a fast-track procedure under which international agreements might be approved as far into the future as October 1, 2005. The “fast track” procedure requires the President to submit draft international agreements, implementing legislation, and a statement of administrative action for congressional approval. Amendments to the legislation in Congress are not permitted once the bill is introduced and committee and floor action votes may consist only of “yes” or “no” votes on any potential agreement as it is introduced.
!CITE:
1998-103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade representative. The bill would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional “executive authority” to negotiate “side agreements” such as those dealing with environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a number of businesses which recently benefitted by a favorable judgment in federal tax court.
!CITE:
1998-103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.
!CITE:
1998-103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.
!CITE:
1998-103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.
!CITE:
1998-103:6
Even if the procedure advocated by the bill were able to survive what should always be the Congressman’s initial threshold of constitutionality, the bill contains provisions which will likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by economist Murray N. Rothbard:
!CITE:
1998-103:7
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-103:8
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
!CITE:
1998-103:9
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialist Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
!CITE:
1998-103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.
!CITE:
1998-103:11
Lastly, critics of the bill convincingly argue that language within H.R. 2621 regarding “Foreign Investment” would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. H.R. 2621 attempts to eliminate artificial or trade-distorting barriers to trade-related foreign investment by reducing or eliminating exceptions to the principle of national treatment; free the transfer of funds relating to investments; reduce or eliminate performance requirements and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment and operation of investments; seeks to establish standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice; and provide meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes. It is argued that H.R. 2621 will congressionally activate the nearly completed Multilateral Agreement on Investment which covers 29 countries and forbids countries from regulating investment or capital flows and would establish new rights for foreign investors and corporations and new obligations for the United States. The MAI requires governments to pay investors for any action that directly or indirectly has an equivalent effect of expropriation. The MAI would be enforceable through international tribunals similar to those of the World Trade Organization without the due process protections of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-103:12
Because H.R. 2621 enacts an unconstitutional foreign policy procedure, furthers our nation down the internationally-managed (rather than free trade) path, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, potentially undermines U.S. sovereignty through MAI, and preserves the President’s executive authority to negotiate “side agreements.” As such, I must oppose the bill.
!TITLE:
World Financial Markets
!DATE:
1 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world financial markets have been in chaos now for nearly a year and a half. The problem surrounding long-term capital investment is only one more item to add to the list. The entire process represents the unwinding of speculative investments encouraged by years of easy credit. By the way, Long Term Credit Management is not even an American corporation. It is registered in the Cayman Islands, I am sure for tax purposes.
!CITE:
1998-104:2
The mess we are witnessing in the world today was a predictable event. Artificially low interest rates and easy credit causes malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive borrowing and uncontrolled speculation.
!CITE:
1998-104:3
We have had now for 27 years a world saturated with fiat currencies and not one has had a definable unit of account.
!CITE:
1998-104:4
There have been no restraints on the world monetary managers to expand their money supplies, fix short-term interest rates or deliberately debase their currencies. Although.
!CITE:
1998-104:5
Short-term benefits were enjoyed, it is clear now they were not worth the resulting chaos. We need not look for the cause which puts the dollar, our economy and our financial markets at risk. The previous boom supported by the illusion of wealth coming from money creation is the cause of current world events, and it guarantees further unwinding of the speculative orgy of the past decades.
!CITE:
1998-104:6
This cannot be prevented. All that we can hope for is to not prolong the agony, as our monetary and fiscal policies did in the U.S. in the 1930s and as they are currently doing in Japan and elsewhere in the world.
!CITE:
1998-104:7
More Federal Reserve fixing of interest rates and credit expansion can hardly solve our problems when this has been precisely the cause of the mess in which we currently find ourselves.
!CITE:
1998-104:8
Price fixing of interest rates contradicts the basic tenets of capitalism. Let it no more be said that today’s mess with financial markets is a result of capitalism’s shortcomings. Nothing is further from the truth. Allowing the market to operate even under today’s dangerous conditions is still the best option for dealing with hedge fund’s gambling mistakes, both current and future.
!CITE:
1998-104:9
A Federal Reserve orchestrated and arm-twisting bailout of LTCM associated with less than a coincidentally announced credit expansion only puts long-term pressure on the dollar. All Americans suffer when the dollar is debased. Congress’s responsibility is to the dollar and not foreign currencies, not foreign economies or international hedge funds which get in over their heads.
!CITE:
1998-104:10
No amount of regulation could have prevented or in the future prevent the inevitable mistakes made in an economy that is misled by rigged interest rates or a money supply dictated by central planners in a fiat money system. Hedge fund operations, because they are international in scope, are impossible to regulate and for the current ongoing crisis it is too late anyway.
!CITE:
1998-104:11
Credit conditions that allow a company with less than $1 billion in capital to buy $100 billion worth of stock with borrowed money and manage $1.2 trillion worth of derivatives is about as classic an example as one could ever find of speculative excess brought on by easy credit. As long as capital is thought to come from a computer at the Federal Reserve and not from savings, the financial problems the world faces today will persist.
!CITE:
1998-104:12
Our problems today should not be used to justify a worldwide central bank, as has been proposed. What we need is sound money without the central planning efforts of a Federal Reserve system fixing interest rates and regulating the money supply. Let us give freedom a chance.
!TITLE:
Hedge Fund Bailout
!DATE:
2 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve orchestrated bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP raises serious policy questions. At one point, the notional value of the Cayman Island-registered fund’s derivatives totalled about $1.2 trillion. We should look seriously at this issue because of the taxpayer-backed liability concerns raised by the involvement of an agency with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The state of Michigan has taken a constructive first step regarding the public policy concerns of derivatives. I urge us to consider the wisdom of the State Representative Greg Kaza as we debate this issue.
!CITE:
1998-105:2
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG KAZA, MICHIGAN
STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR
OF FINANCE, WALSH COLLEGE
Derivatives are financial instruments broadly defined as any contract or convertible security that changes in value in concert with a related or underlying security, fixed-income instrument, future or other instrument, currency or index; or that obtains much of its value from price movements in a related or underlying instrument; or an option, swap, warrant, or debt instrument with one or more options embedded in or attached to it, the value of which contract or security is determined in whole or in part by the price of one or more underlying instruments or markets.
!CITE:
1998-105:3
Although derivatives are a relatively recent development in financial markets, their use by corporations, pension and mutual funds, financial institutions, governments and those involved in money management are clearly ascendant, according to the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies. The issue is not whether the government should ban or in some way restrict the prudent use of derivatives to hedge risk. Rather, the issue is one of disclosure, i.e., how best to provide increased transparency as our complex international financial system enters the 21st Century.
!CITE:
1998-105:4
Three years ago I addressed the very same issue in Michigan by authoring state legislation that provided increased transparency by requiring units of government to disclose their derivative holdings to the public. Government units have to make investment decisions regarding the money they receive or retain; unfortunately, investment practices and decisions can sometimes lead to significant losses when taxdollars are unwisely invested in derivatives. Orange County in California and Independence Township in Oakland County, Michigan are both examples of government units that experienced significant losses as a result of the imprudent use of derivatives.
!CITE:
1998-105:5
Initially, some of my colleagues wondered whether a ban or restriction on the use of derivatives would be preferable. But committee testimony soon convinced them that derivatives, although complex, are used by many institutions, including government pension funds, to prudently hedge risk. Our five-bill package required public disclosure of derivative holdings by government units. The legislation garnered bi-partisan sponsorship and support, and ultimately became state law.
!CITE:
1998-105:6
A related issue that we discussed privately at the time was whether the potential for moral hazard created by federal deposit insurance means private financial institutions should be required to disclose their derivative holdings in the interest of transparency. You are now likely to contemplate this issue yourselves given events surrounding the hedge fund in question, Long-Term Capital Management; and the potential for systemic risk posed by any future episode that might involve the imprudent use of derivatives and excessive amounts of leverage.
!TITLE:
Claims Debate Time In Opposition
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether or not either gentleman is opposed to the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Indiana opposed to the bill?

Mr. HAMILTON. I support the bill, Mr. Speaker.
!CITE:
1998-106:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will control 20 minutes in opposition and the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) will control 20 minutes in support of the bill.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 1
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-107:2
Mr. Speaker, understand this legislation came before the committee on Friday, one legislative day prior to today. There has been no committee report filed, and it was brought up under suspension. And I believe this legislation is very serious legislation. It is not a casual piece of legislation condemning a leader in another country that is doing less than honorable things.
!CITE:
1998-107:3
I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.
!CITE:
1998-107:4
For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.
!CITE:
1998-107:5
So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this President to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
!CITE:
1998-107:6
Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was H.R. 137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn and also to set up a U.N. commission to study this and give the U.N. authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. So this is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations, but we are the spokesperson for them.
!CITE:
1998-107:7
Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.
!CITE:
1998-107:8
So I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the President more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the President to pursue this.
!CITE:
1998-107:9
Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.
!CITE:
1998-107:10
Just today it was announced that the Turks are lined up on the Syrian border. What for? To go in there and kill the Kurds because they do not like the Kurds. I think that is terrible. But what are we doing about it? Who are the Turks? They are our allies, they are our friends. They get military assistance. The American people are paying the Turks to keep their military up. So we are responsible for that.
!CITE:
1998-107:11
This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are under trained and lack equipment, and we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and say why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everybody. We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?
!CITE:
1998-107:12
There are people around the world that we deal with that are equally repulsive to Saddam Hussein, and I believe very sincerely that the founders of this country were on the right track when they said stay out of entangling alliances. And we should trade with people; we would get along with them better. We have pursued this type of policy in Cuba for 40 years, and it has served Castro well. Why do we not go down and get rid of Castro? Where do we get this authority to kill a dictator? We do not have that authority, and to do it under one day of hearings, mark it up, bring it up the next day under suspension; I do not understand why anybody could vote for this just on the nature of it.
!CITE:
1998-107:13
We should not be doing this. We should stop and think about it and try to figure out a much better way.
!CITE:
1998-107:14
I, for instance, am on a bill to trade with Cuba. Oh, how horrible, we should not trade with Cuba, they are a bunch of Commies down there. But we should be selling them rice and we should be selling them our crops. We should not be bombing these people.
!CITE:
1998-107:15
As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint as to why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there is some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money, and I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the west. So he has to go.
!CITE:
1998-107:16
But also at the end of this legislation it tells us something about what might be going on. It is they are asking to set up and check into the funds that Saddam Hussein owes to the west. Who is owed? They do not owe me any money. But I will bet my colleagues there is a lot of banks in New York who are owed a lot of money, and this is one of the goals, to set up and make sure Saddam Hussein pays his bills.
!CITE:
1998-107:17
All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the President this much authority to go to war.
!CITE:
1998-107:18
Under the appropriations it is endless, it is open, endless, and here we are concerned about saving Social Security. Any amount of money spent on this bill comes out of Social Security. Yes, there was yelling and screaming about a tax cut. Oh, it is coming out of Social Security. Well, this money is not appropriated, and it is such sums as necessary for military and economic benefits. After we get rid of one thug, we are going to have it in. I hope we make a better choice than we did with Bin Laden. I mean he was our close ally.
!CITE:
1998-107:19
Please think twice, slow up, vote against this bill. We do not need this.
!CITE:
1998-107:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 2
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MILLER of Florida). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 10 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) has 6 1/2 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON) has 2 minutes remaining.
!CITE:
1998-108:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-108:3
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana makes some very good points indicating that he is not convinced that this is workable. So back to the practicality of the bill. Even though one might argue there is a lot of good intentions here, even a Member that is supporting the bill is very uncertain whether it is workable.
!CITE:
1998-108:4
In some ways, even if it is workable, it is going to be working against us and working against the United States and working against the taxpayers of this country.
!CITE:
1998-108:5
But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
!CITE:
1998-108:6
That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.
!CITE:
1998-108:7
So we are talking about killing Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator. But how many ruthless dictators do we have? We have plenty. So how many more should we go after?
!CITE:
1998-108:8
So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.
!CITE:
1998-108:9
This is more or less what has happened. This is part of a policy that we have been following for quite a few decades. Yet, the problems continue to emerge.
!CITE:
1998-108:10
We can hardly be sympathetic to the Kurds who are being punished by the Iraqis at the same time we are paying the Turks to do the same thing to the Kurds. So there is something awful inconsistent about this.
!CITE:
1998-108:11
There is nothing wrong with a policy of trying to maintain friendship with people, trying to trade with people and influence them that way rather than saying, if you do not do exactly as we tell you, we are going to bomb you.
!CITE:
1998-108:12
This is a policy we have been following for way too long. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of respect for law because, technically, it is not legal. Waging war should only occur when the Congress and the people decide this. But to casually give more and more authority to the President to do this and encourage him to bump off dictators is a dangerous precedent to set.
!CITE:
1998-108:13
I think there is no doubt in my mind what is best for the United States. We should not pass this resolution. If there need to be more efforts made, do it some other way. But, obviously, this is not a good way to do it. It is sacrificing the principle of law. It is sacrificing the Constitution. It is sacrificing the practicalities of even the people who are supporting it are not quite sure it is going to work.
!CITE:
1998-108:14
So I would say give serious consideration to not supporting this bill. We need a “no” vote on this.
!CITE:
1998-108:15
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Iraq — Part 3
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1998-109:2
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California makes a very good point, that sometimes we get involved in these battles and we never fight to complete victory. He argues the case for pursuing it and always winning and take out the dictator that we are opposing.
!CITE:
1998-109:3
There is some merit to that argument, but there is also a very good reason why that does not happen and will not happen. It is because when we fight a war for non-national security reasons, when it is limited to protecting oil or some other interest, then there is a limitation, there is no wanting to expand it.
!CITE:
1998-109:4
When we fight a war for national security reasons, we declare the war, the people join, they are willing to support it financially, they volunteer to go into the military, and they fight to win. But we have not done that since World War II, precisely because we have this namby-pamby foreign policy of being everything to everybody and we do not even defend our national security adequately enough.
!CITE:
1998-109:5
The gentleman from California makes a good point also. He is concerned that somebody like Saddam Hussein may attack us with weapons of mass destruction. He is precisely right. I am concerned about that too. But I would say that our exposure is about 100 times greater because of our policy. Why is it that the terrorists want to go after Americans? Because we are always dropping bombs on people and telling people what to do; because we are the policemen. We pretend to be the arbitrator of every argument in the world, even those that have existed for 1,000 years. It is a failed, flawed policy.
!CITE:
1998-109:6
So I would say I have exactly the same concerns, but I think the policy that we follow has generated this problem, and it will continue.
!CITE:
1998-109:7
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by talking a little bit about this authorization. It says, there are to be authorized appropriations, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation funds. This is what the money is to go for: Defense articles, defense services, military education, and training. Sounds like getting ready for the Bay of Pigs. That is exactly what we did. And then we backed off, we were not doing it for the right reason, and of course we have solidified for 40 years the dictatorship in Cuba.
!CITE:
1998-109:8
So do my colleagues think our policy over the last 10 years has actually helped to weaken Saddam Hussein? Every time he comes out of it stronger. And then those who say, “Well, we should march in,” we should all question. Those of us here in the Congress who are so anxious to take out this dictator, they should be willing to march themselves, or send their children and send their grandchildren. Is it worth that? No, no, we would not want to do that, we have to keep our troops safe, safe from harm, but we will just pay somebody to do it. We will pay somebody to do it and we will make wild promises. Promise the Kurds something. They will take care of Saddam Hussein. And sure enough, the promises never come through.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
!CITE:
1998-109:9
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not think it is proper for us to offer those people who are struggling for freedoms in Iraq against their dictatorship a helping hand?
!CITE:
1998-109:10
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it would be absolutely proper to do that, as long as it came out of the gentleman’s wallet and we did not extract it from somebody in this country, a taxpayer at the point of a gun and say, look, bin Laden is a great guy. I want more of your money.
!CITE:
1998-109:11
That is what we did in the 1980s. That is what the Congress did. They went to the taxpayers, they put a gun to their head, and said, you pay up, because we think bin Laden is a freedom fighter.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if the gentleman will further yield, it was just not handled correctly.
!CITE:
1998-109:12
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, the policy is flawed. The policy is flawed.
!CITE:
1998-109:13
I think the conclusions we have today are logical. I do not think they lack logic. I think that if one decides that we are fighting for our national security reasons, we never stop short of victory. So this would go along with the gentleman’s argument that we stopped too soon in Iraq. But we were not there for national security reasons. They were not about to invade us, and they are not about to invade us. The only way we should fear an invasion by these hoodlums is if we incite them to terrorism.
!CITE:
1998-109:14
We should consider this a very serious piece of legislation. This is a vote for virtual war and giving more power to the President. It has an open-ended appropriation, and if we spend one nickel on it, we are going to take it out of Social Security, the way the budget works around here.
!CITE:
1998-109:15
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Demands Yeas And Nays
!DATE:
5 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and the Chair’s prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
!TITLE:
Lake Texana
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago, HR 4570 was described as a “delicate balance” not to be disturbed by votes against either the resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented for passage of the bill was the “brilliance” with which a compromise securing the necessary number of votes was “engineered.” Statements such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in the nation’s capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which federal government “favors” are distributed in a means which assures everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority for most of what HR 4570 proposes to do.
!CITE:
1998-111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).
!CITE:
1998-111:3
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation. This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43 million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-111:4
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource. Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
!CITE:
1998-111:5
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons, while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose HR 4570.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Hays County 4-H Annual Dinner, Dance And Auction
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Hays County 4–H will hold their annual dinner, dance and auction on Saturday, October 10, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-112:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-112:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Hays County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Fayette County 4-H Annual Banquet
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-113:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Fayette County 4–H will hold their annual banquet on Sunday, October 11, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.
!CITE:
1998-113:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.
!CITE:
1998-113:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Fayette County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Award Winners Of The Fayette County 4-H
!DATE:
7 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to thirteen young men and women from Fayette County who will this weekend be honored by the Fayette County 4–H club in my district.
!CITE:
1998-114:2
Being awarded the Gold Star will be Michelle Cernoch; Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.
!CITE:
1998-114:3
Receiving the Silver Star, Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.
!CITE:
1998-114:4
The “I Dare You” award will go to Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.
!CITE:
1998-114:5
The “Outstanding Junior” Award will be presented to Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.
!CITE:
1998-114:6
And finally, the “Outstanding Sub Junior” award will be presented to Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick and Brandon Otto.
!CITE:
1998-114:7
These fine young people should be commended for their dedication to the fine principles of 4–H. I know I speak for all the constituents of the 14th District when I offer them congratulations and best wishes for continued success.
!TITLE:
National Provider ID
!DATE:
8 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that under the rule my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill is not permitted. This simple amendment forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any funds to implement those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.
!CITE:
1998-115:2
My amendment was drafted to ensure that the administration cannot take any steps toward developing or implementing a medical ID. This approach is necessary because if the administration is allowed to work on developing a medical ID it is likely to attempt to implement the ID on at least a “trial” basis. I would remind my colleagues of our experience with national testing. In 1997 Congress forbade the Department of Education from implementing a national test, however it allowed work toward developing national tests. The administration has used this “development loophole” to defy congressional intent by taking steps toward implementation of a national test. It seems clear that only a complete ban forbidding any work on health identifiers will stop all work toward implementation.
!CITE:
1998-115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
!CITE:
1998-115:4
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
!CITE:
1998-115:5
Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.
!CITE:
1998-115:6
My amendment forbids the federal government from creating federal IDs for doctors and employers as well as for individuals. Contrary to the claims of some, federal-ID numbers for doctors and employers threaten American liberty every bit as much as individual medical IDs.
!CITE:
1998-115:7
The National Provider ID will force physicians who use technologies such as e-mail in their practices to record all health care transactions with the government. This will allow the government to track and monitor the treatment of all patients under that doctor’s care. Government agents may pull up the medical records of a patient with no more justification than a suspicion the provider is involved in fraudulent activity unrelated to that patient’s care!
!CITE:
1998-115:8
The National Standard Employer Identifier will require employers to record employees’ private health transactions in a database. This will allow coworkers, hackers, government agents and other unscrupulous persons to access the health transactions of every employee in a company simply by typing the company’s identifier into their PC!
!CITE:
1998-115:9
Many of my colleagues admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
!CITE:
1998-115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
!CITE:
1998-115:11
Even the process by which the National Identifier is being developed shows disdain for the rights of the American people. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, which is developing the national identifier, attempted to keep important documents hidden from the public in violation of federal law. In fact, one of the members of the NCVHS panel working on the medical ID chastised his colleagues for developing the medical ID “in an aura of secrecy.”
!CITE:
1998-115:12
Last September, NCVHS proposed guidelines for the development of the medical ID. Those guidelines required that all predecisional documents “should be kept in strict confidence and not be shared or discussed,” This is a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all working documents to be made public. Although NCVHS, succumbing to public pressure and possible legal action against it, recently indicated it will make its pre-decisional documents available in compliance with federal law, I hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee agree that the NCVHS attempt to evade the will of Congress and keep its work secret does not bode well for any future attempts to protect the medical ID from abuse by government officials.
!CITE:
1998-115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1998-115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
!CITE:
1998-115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.
!TITLE:
Congratulating Fayette County 4-H Award Recipients
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to several fine young men and women from my district who have distinguished themselves in the Fayette County 4–H. As my colleagues know, 4–H is one of the finest youth-oriented organizations in our nation, developing character in our future leaders.
!CITE:
1998-116:2
Fayette County 4–H will be recognizing with special awards the following young people on Saturday night, October 9, and I know my colleagues join me in congratulating them and wishing them the best for the future.
!CITE:
1998-116:3
Receiving the Gold Star award are Michelle Cernoch, Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.
!CITE:
1998-116:4
Receiving the Silver Star award are Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.
!CITE:
1998-116:5
Receiving the “I Dare You” award are Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.
!CITE:
1998-116:6
Receiving the “Outstanding Jr.” award are Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.
!CITE:
1998-116:7
And receiving the “Outstanding Sub Jr.” award are Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick, and Brandon Otto.
!TITLE:
New Global Economic Plan
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-117:1
Mr. PAUL. Global leaders are scurrying around to put together, as quickly as possible, a new plan to solve the international financial crisis.
!CITE:
1998-117:2
The world economies have been built on generous credit expansion with each country inflating their currencies at different rates. Additionally, each country has had different political, tax, and regulatory policies leading to various degrees of trust and stability. Economies that have “enjoyed” inflationary booms, by their very nature, must undergo a market correction. The market demands deflation of all excesses, while the politicians and special interests agitate for continued credit inflation. Under these circumstances, financial assets may deflate in price but monetary inflation continues and the currency is further depreciated thus putting serious pressure on the dollar; as in the case of the United States.
!CITE:
1998-117:3
Fluctuating fiat currencies, no matter how inefficient as compared to a world commodity monetary standard, function solely because exchange rates are allowed to fluctuate and currency movements across borders are freely permitted as capital seeks the most efficient market. This process provides an indication when host countries need to improve monetary and fiscal policy.
!CITE:
1998-117:4
A gold standard solves capital flow problems automatically and avoids all currency speculation. Gold prevents excesses from developing to any dangerous level.
!CITE:
1998-117:5
Decades ago, the gold standard was abandoned and now our global planners want to take another step to regulate all capital flows throughout the world thus removing the only good indicator left to warn of dangers ahead and the need for sound reform. The rapid transfer of capital around the world is the messenger and not the cause. Killing the messenger will only hide and increase distortions while prolonging the economic pain.
!CITE:
1998-117:6
The proposal of the Group of 22 to regulate capital flows through a new “World Central Bank” prevents any effort to restore efficient market mechanisms and prevents any serious discussion for using gold as the money of choice.
!CITE:
1998-117:7
All money managers in major countries decry currency controls by any individual country yet are now about to embark on a new world-wide approach to regulating all capital flows — a global economic plan to socialize all world credit. But, it won’t work because the plan is deeply and inherently flawed.
!CITE:
1998-117:8
First, the plan demands additional appropriations to transfer wealth from the richer to the poorer nations through increased funding of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Development Bank, and direct foreign aid programs.
!CITE:
1998-117:9
Second, it calls for more credit expansion by the richer nations, more loan guarantees, and export-import bank credits and, indirectly, by providing credit to the Exchange Stabilization Fund and possibly to the Bank International Settlements.
!CITE:
1998-117:10
Third this plan calls for an international government agreement to strictly control capital flows and mandate debt forgiveness in contrast to allowing countries to default. Controlling swift movements of capital is impossible and any attempt only encourages world government through planning by a world fiat monetary system. Any temporary “benefit” can only be achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the world economy, all done with the pretense of preserving financial stability at the expense of national sovereignty and personal liberty.
!CITE:
1998-117:11
Let there be no doubt, the current chaos is being used to promote a new world fiat monetary system while giving political powers to its managers.
!CITE:
1998-117:12
Instead, we should be talking about abandoning the paper money system we have lived with for 27 years. It has, after all, brought us the current world-wide financial mess.
!CITE:
1998-117:13
Free markets and stable money should be our goal, not further institutionalizing of world economic planning and fiat money at the sacrifice of personal liberty. Indeed, we need a serious discussion of the current crisis but so far no one should be encouraged by the direction in which the Group of 22 is going. Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect the dollar, not to sit idly by as it’s being deliberately devalued.
!TITLE:
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
!DATE:
9 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4567 even though I support reforming the Interim Payment System (IPS) and I certainly support expanding the health care options available to American veterans. However, I cannot support this bill because this solution to home care is inadequate and it raises taxes on Americans instead of cutting wasteful, unconstitutional spending to offset the bill’s increases in expenditures.
!CITE:
1998-118:2
I am pleased that Congress is at last taking action to address the problems created by the IPS. Unless the IPS is reformed, efficient home care agencies across the country may be forced to close. This would raise Medicare costs, as more seniors would be forced to enter nursing homes or forced to seek care from a limited number of home health care agencies. In fact, those agencies that survive the IPS will have been granted a virtual monopoly over the home care market. Only in Washington could punishing efficient businesses and creating a monopoly be sold as a cost-cutting measure!
!CITE:
1998-118:3
Congress does need to act to ensure that affordable home care remains available to the millions of senior citizens who rely on home care. However, the proposal before us today does not address the concerns of small providers in states such as Texas. Instead, it increases the reimbursement rate of home care agencies in other states. I am also concerned that the reimbursement formula in this bill continues to saddle younger home health agencies with lower rates of reimbursement than similarly situated agencies who have been in operation longer. Any IPS reform worthy of support should place all health care agencies on a level playing field for reimbursements.
!CITE:
1998-118:4
A member of my staff has been informed by a small home health care operator in my district that passage of this bill would allow them only to provide an additional eight visits per year. This will not keep home health patients with complex medical conditions out of nursing homes and hospitals. Congress should implement a real, budget-neutral home health care reform rather than waste our time and the taxpayers’ money with the phony reform before us today.
!CITE:
1998-118:5
Mr. Speaker, I also support the language of the bill expanding the health care options available to veterans’ benefits. Ensuring the nation’s veterans have a quality health care system should be one of the governments’ top priorities. In fact, I am currently working on a plan to improve veterans’ health care by allowing them greater access to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). However, I cannot, in good conscience, support the proposals before us today because, for all their good intentions, it is fatally flawed in implementation for it attempts to offset its new spending with a tax increase.
!CITE:
1998-118:6
Now I know many of the bill’s supporters will claim that this is not a tax increase just an adjustment in the qualifications for a tax benefit or tightening a tax loophole. However, the fact is that by raising the threshold before a taxpayer can rollover their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA the federal government is forcing some people to pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, thus they are raising taxes. It is morally wrong for Congress to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to provide benefits for another group of Americans.
!CITE:
1998-118:7
Instead of raising taxes Congress should “offset” these programs by cutting spending in other areas. In particular, Congress should finance veterans health care by reducing expenditures wasted on global adventurism, such as the Bosnia mission. Congress should stop spending Americans blood and treasure to intervene in quarrels that do not concern the American people.
!CITE:
1998-118:8
Similarly, Congress should seek funds for an increased expenditure on home care by ending federal support for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which benefit wealthy bankers and powerful interests but not the American people. At a time when the federal government continues to grow to historic heights and meddles in every facet of American life I cannot believe that Congress cannot find expenditure cuts to finance the programs in this bill!
!CITE:
1998-118:9
Mr. Speaker, I must also note that the only time this Congress seems concerned with offsets is when we are either cutting taxes or increasing benefits to groups like veterans or senior citizens. The problem is not a lack of funds but a refusal of this Congress to set proper priorities and put the needs of the American people first.
!CITE:
1998-118:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon this Congress to reject this bill and instead support an IPS reform that is fair to all home care providers and does not finance worthwhile changes in Medicare by raising taxes. Instead, Congress should offset the cost to these worthy programs by cutting programs that do not benefit the American people.
!TITLE:
Rights Of The Individual
!DATE:
14 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Michael Kelly, National Journal editor. Mr. Kelly aptly describes how the notion of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-119:2
PUNISHING ‘HATE CRIMES’
(By Michael Kelly)
As one who wholeheartedly supports capital punishment, I have what seems to me a cleareyed vision of what justice demands in the murder of Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old Wyoming college student who was, one night last week, robbed, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence and left to die. Bring in the monsters who did this, try ’em, verdict ’em and string ’em up, preferably before an applauding crowd of thousands.
!CITE:
1998-119:3
And justice does appear on the way to being served. Two young men — Russell A. Henderson and Aaron J. McKinney — have been arrested and charged with first-degree murder; their girlfriends have been charged as accessories. There does not seem to be a lot of doubt that Henderson and McKinney did commit the acts that caused Shepard’s death, nor does it seem at all likely that they will escape punishment.
!CITE:
1998-119:4
But this, it is said, is not enough. Because Shepard was gay, and because his killers appear to have been motivated in part by an anti-gay animus (though police say robbery was the primary motive), justice is said to demand more. Specifically, it demands more bad law.
!CITE:
1998-119:5
“Hate-crime” laws mandate increased penalties for defendants found guilty of committing crimes inspired by certain categories of prejudice. In 21 states and the District of Columbia, the categories are: race, religion, color, national origin and sexual orientation. Nineteen additional states have hate-crime laws that do not cover sexual orientation. Ten states, including Wyoming, have not passed categorical hate-crime laws. There is also a federal law, which covers race, religion, color and national origin but not sex or sexual orientation.
!CITE:
1998-119:6
For Shepard’s sake, the cry arises, Wyoming must pass a hate-crime law, and Congress must pass a new, more sweeping, Federal Hate Crimes Protection Act, which would add to the roster of crimes made federal offenses those inspired by bigotry based on sex, disability and sexual orientation. “There is something we can do about this. Congress needs to pass our tough hate crimes legislation,” President Clinton declared Monday, the day Shepard died of his injuries.
!CITE:
1998-119:7
At least he is consistent. No president has ever been more willing to assault liberty in the pursuit of political happiness than has this one. Clinton is always willing to embrace any new erosion of rights, as long as there is a group of voters or political contributors out there who wish it so. This is one area in which Clinton has been thoroughly bipartisan. In his five years in office, he has joined Republicans in Congress on quite a spree of liberty-bashing. He has signed laws that have stripped habeas corpus to its bones, vastly increased the number of crimes deemed federal offenses, established mindless mandatory sentencing and targeted certain classes of defendants — terrorists, drug pushers — for the special evisceration of rights.
!CITE:
1998-119:8
And playing to the other side of the political spectrum, Clinton has consistently and strongly supported the expansion of harassment and discrimination law, an expansion that has in recent years increasingly worked to criminalize behavior that government once regarded as private. Well, at least he supported such law until the case of Jones v. Clinton arose.
!CITE:
1998-119:9
Of all the violence that has been done in this great expansion of state authority over, and criminalization of, the private behavior and thoughts of citizens, none is more serious than that perpetuated by the hate-crime laws. Here, we are truly in the realm of thought crimes. Hate-crime laws require the state to treat one physical assault differently from the way it would treat another — solely because the state has decided that one motive for assaulting a person is more heinous than another.
!CITE:
1998-119:10
What Henderson and McKinney allegedly did was a terrible, evil thing. But would it have been less terrible if Shepard had not been gay? If Henderson and McKinney beat Shepard to death because they hated him personally, not as a member of a group, should the law treat them more lightly? Yes, say hate-crime laws.
!CITE:
1998-119:11
In 1996 the FBI recorded 1,281 “crimes against persons” for reasons of sexual-orientation bias. Two of these were murders and 222 were aggravated assaults. Four hundred and seventy-two of what the government termed hate crimes were not assaults but “acts of intimidation.” These latter would not be crimes except for the determination that expressions of certain prejudices and hatreds were in themselves criminal offenses.
!CITE:
1998-119:12
There is a long history of police and prosecutors slighting assaults against gays and lesbians. Justice demands that the cops and the courts treat the perpetrators of assaults against citizens who happen to be homosexual as harshly as they do the perpetrators of assaults against anyone else. But not more so.
!TITLE:
Monetary Policy
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a world-wide financial crisis is now upon us.
!CITE:
1998-120:2
For 2 years, I have called attention to this predictable event hoping the Congress would deal with it in a serious manner.
!CITE:
1998-120:3
Although many countries are now suffering more than the United States, in time, I am sure our problems will become much greater
!CITE:
1998-120:4
A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twenty-seven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in its turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970’s.
!CITE:
1998-120:5
Now, after another 27 years, we are seeing the end of the post-Bretton Woods floating rate system with another bang as the financial asset inflation of the 1980’s and 1990’s collapses. A new system is now required.
!CITE:
1998-120:6
Just as the Bretton Woods system was never repaired due to its flaws, so too will it be impossible to rebuild the floating rate system of the past 27 years. The sooner we admit to its total failure, and start planning for sound money, the better.
!CITE:
1998-120:7
We must understand the serious flaw in the current system that is playing havoc with world markets. When license is given to central banks to inflate (debase) a currency, they eventually do so. Politicians love the central bank’s role as lender of last resort and their power to monetize the steady stream of public debt generated by the largesse that guarantees the politician’s reelection.
!CITE:
1998-120:8
The constitutional or credit restraint of a commodity standard of money offers stability and non-inflationary growth but does not accommodate the special interests that demand benefits bigger and faster than normal markets permit. The only problem is the financial havoc that results when the unsound system is forced into a major correction which are inherent to all fiat systems.
!CITE:
1998-120:9
That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood. Attempts at credit stimulation with interest rates below 1 percent is doing nothing for Japan’s economy and for good reasons. it is the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis.
!CITE:
1998-120:10
If the problem were merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the luck few, benefits are received when government inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.
!CITE:
1998-120:11
But in time — and that time is now — it comes to an end. Even the beneficiaries suffer the inevitable consequences of a philosophy that teaches wealth comes from money creation and that central banks are acceptable central economic planners — even in countries such as the United States where many pay lip service to free markets and free trade.
!CITE:
1998-120:12
The tragedy in the end is far more damaging to the innocent than any benefit that was supposed to be delivered to the people as a whole. There is no justifiable trade-off. The costs far exceed the benefits. In addition, the economic chaos leads too frequently to a loss of personal liberty.
!CITE:
1998-120:13
A program to prevent this from happening is necessary.
!CITE:
1998-120:14
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.
!CITE:
1998-120:15
Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins.
!CITE:
1998-120:16
Third, we must abandon the tradition of bailing out bad debtors, foreign and domestic. No International Monetary Fund and related institution funding to prop up bankrupt countries, and no Federal Reserve-orchestrated bailouts such as Long Term Capital Management LP. Liquidation of bad debt and investments must be permitted.
!CITE:
1998-120:17
Fourth, policy elsewhere must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed.
!CITE:
1998-120:18
Following a policy of this sort could quickly restore growth and stability to any filing economy and soften the blow for all those about to experience the connections that have been put in place by previous years of mischief, mismanagement and monetary inflation.
!CITE:
1998-120:19
Short of a free market, sound money approach will guarantee a sustained attack on personal liberty as governments grow more authoritarian and militaristic.
!TITLE:
Education Debate
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education debate that has consumed much of this Congress in recent days. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the difference between the congressional leadership and the administration are not that significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposals to further nationalize education.
!CITE:
1998-121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
!CITE:
1998-121:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.
!CITE:
1998-121:4
This bill is the largest tax credit for education in the history of our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.
!CITE:
1998-121:5
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the Federal Government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of Federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.
!CITE:
1998-121:6
Of course I applaud all efforts which move in this direction. the Gingrich/Coverdell education tax cut, The Granger/Dunn bill, and, yes, President Clinton’s college tax credits are good first steps in the direction I advocate. However, Congress must act boldly, we can ill afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs, creating new Federal education programs (such as those contained in the Reading Excellence Act and the four new Federal programs created by the Higher Education Act), and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block grants.
!CITE:
1998-121:7
One area where this Congress was successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing and thank Mr. GOODLING for his leadership in this struggle. However, I wish this provision did no come at the price of $1.1 billion in new Federal spending. In addition, I note that this Congress is taking several steps toward creating a national curriculum, particularly through the Reading Excellence Act, which dictates teaching methodologies to every classroom in the Nation and creates a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with Federal standards the goal of education.
!CITE:
1998-121:8
So, even when Congress resists one proposal to further nationalize education, it supports another form of nationalization. Some Members will claim they are resisting nationalization and even standing up for the 10th amendment by fighting to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on block grants. These Members say that the expenditure levels do not matter, it is the way the money that is spent which is important. Contrary to the view of these well-meaning but misguided members, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on Federal education programs do matter.
!CITE:
1998-121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-121:10
Furthermore, the Federal Government’s power to treat State governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a State’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates in exchange for Federal funding!
!CITE:
1998-121:11
As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.
!CITE:
1998-121:12
Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1998-121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
!CITE:
1998-121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.
!CITE:
1998-121:15
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’ failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy road we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.
!TITLE:
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
!DATE:
16 October 1998
!CITE:
1998-122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Richard Sincere, Jr., President of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. Mr. Sincere aptly describes how the very essence of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.
!CITE:
1998-122:2
[From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14, 1998]
GAY STUDENT’S MURDER IS NO REASON TO
MAKE BAD LAW
(By Richard E. Sincere, Jr.)
The wicked murder of Matthew Shepard by two thugs, assisted by two equally contemptible accomplices, has resurrected a debate about the need for hate-crime laws.
!CITE:
1998-122:3
Shepard, an openly gay University of Wyoming student who had been widely praised for his talents, ambitions and personality, last week was beaten senseless and left for dead, tied up like a scarecrow along a fence on a little-traveled country road. Miraculously, he was found by passers-by many hours after the attack, still struggling for life when he was rushed to a hospital in Fort Collins, CO, where he died Monday while on life support.
!CITE:
1998-122:4
Local law enforcement officials in Laramie, WY, where the crime took place, quickly arrested the alleged perpetrators — two men who performed the assault and two women who helped them hide their deed — and it looks like they will be punished to the full extent the law allows if they are convicted. With Shepard’s death, they face a possible death sentence.
!CITE:
1998-122:5
Laramie, a university community of 27,000 people, is feeling both shame and outrage, a sentiment shared by all right-minded people throughout the country, indeed around the world. News of this brutal assault has appeared everywhere in print and broadcast media.
!CITE:
1998-122:6
The crime against Shepard has renewed calls for passing hate-crime legislation, both in Wyoming and nationwide. Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer and President Bill Clinton have said that this attack shows the need for such laws.
!CITE:
1998-122:7
This would be a mistake. It would be a mistake because hate-crime laws, however well intentioned, are feel-good laws whose primary result is thought control, violating our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of conscience. It would be a mistake because it suggests that crimes against some people are worse than crimes against others. And it would be a mistake because it uses a personal tragedy, deeply felt by Shepard’s family and friends, to advance a political agenda.
!CITE:
1998-122:8
Hunter College Professor Wayne Dynes, editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, notes that hate-crime laws, if they are to be applied in a constitutional manner, must be content-neutral. He notes this example: “Countless numbers of people, aware of the unspeakable atrocities under his leadership, hated Pol Pot. This hate was surely well warranted. If one of the Pol Pot haters had killed him, would this be a hate crime? Why not?”
!CITE:
1998-122:9
Dynes adds: “In seeking to exculpate the killer, we would get into the question of whether some hate is ‘justified’ and some is not.” He concludes that hate-crime prosecutions “will be used to sanction certain belief systems — systems which the enforcer would like, in some Orwellian fashion, to make unthinkable. This is not a proper use of law.”
!CITE:
1998-122:10
Under our system of justice, everyone is equal before the law. Those accused of crimes are entitled to certain constitutional protection, which we must cherish, and the victims of a crime — whether a Bill Gates or the poorest street-sweeper in a slum — are entitled to the same respect. (In the Middle Ages, the law required a greater punishment for killing a rich man or noble than it did for killing a peasant or a laborer. Our law recognizes no such distinctions.)
!CITE:
1998-122:11
So, too, with class- or group-based distinctions. Is it worse to kill a man because he is foreign-born than it is to kill him to steal his car? Is it worse to kill a woman because she is black than because she cut you off in traffic? Is it worse to beat up a fat sissy boy if the bullies think their victim is gay, or if they dislike him because he is fat? Crime is crime; assault is assault. All deserve punishment.
!CITE:
1998-122:12
Hateful thoughts may be disagreeable, but they are not crimes in themselves. The crimes that result from hateful thoughts — whether vandalism, assault or murder — are already punishable by existing statutes.
!CITE:
1998-122:13
In a speech at the University of Texas last year, libertarian activist Gene Cisewski said: “We should be anti-violence, period. Any act of violence has to be punished swiftly and severely and it shouldn’t matter who the victim is. The initiation of force is wrong and it doesn’t matter why — the mere fact you had a motive is enough.”
!CITE:
1998-122:14
Cisewski acknowledged the good intentions of those who propose hate-crime laws. He noted that “the reason for the call for (such laws) comes from bad enforcement of the laws.” Police and prosecutors have been willing to look the other way when victims came from unfavored groups. Luckily, in the Shepard case, the authorities seem unwavering in their prosecution. This is, unfortunately, not always the case.
!CITE:
1998-122:15
The answer, Cisewski suggested, and I agree, is that “we hold every law enforcement official and every court official who administers justice to the standard that every American is guaranteed equal protection under the law.”
!CITE:
1998-122:16
Hate-crime laws set up certain privileged categories of people, defined by the groups to which they belong, and offers them unequal protection under the law. This is wrong. It is sad to see a young man’s personal misfortune used by various special-interest groups to advance such an agenda.
!CITE:
1998-122:17
We are all shocked and dismayed by the assault on Shepard. Such brutality cannot, should not be countenanced. Let us not multiply the crimes of his attackers by writing bad law in response.
!TITLE:
Is Either Gentleman Opposed?
!DATE:
17 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-123:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the resolution?

The SPEAKER. The unanimous consent request did not allocate time on the basis of opposition.
!TITLE:
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
!DATE:
17 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-124:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the proper way.
!CITE:
1998-124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.
!CITE:
1998-124:3
Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.
!CITE:
1998-124:4
This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping this action.
!CITE:
1998-124:5
We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any more.
!CITE:
1998-124:6
We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House, must assume our responsibilities.
!CITE:
1998-124:7
I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.
!CITE:
1998-124:8
First and foremost, the notion that the United States can dictate the political leadership of a foreign policy is immoral. What right have we to determine these things for any nation other than our own? The answer, clearly, is “none,” we have no such right.
!CITE:
1998-124:9
There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.
!CITE:
1998-124:10
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress.
!CITE:
1998-124:11
As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the government of a sovereign nation.
!CITE:
1998-124:12
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes.
!CITE:
1998-124:13
Finally, even by the amoral measure of “realpolitik” the policy of Saddam’s removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who practice “realpolitik” this points to the fact that by the measures established by the “pragmatists” the stated policy of Saddam’s removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint.
!TITLE:
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
!DATE:
19 December 1998
!CITE:
1998-125:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment against the President. There is neither pleasure nor vindictiveness in this vote and I have found no one else taking this vote lightly. It seems though many of our colleagues are not pleased with the investigative process; some believing it to have been overly aggressive and petty, while others are convinced it has been unnecessarily limited and misdirected. It certainly raises the question of whether or not the special prosecutor rather than the Congress itself should be doing this delicate work of oversight. Strict adherence to the Constitution would reject the notion that Congress undermine the separations of power by delivering this oversight responsibility to the administration. The long delays and sharp criticisms of the special prosecutor could have been prevented if the Congress had not been dependent on the actions of an Attorney General’s appointee.
!CITE:
1998-125:2
The charges against the President are serious and straight forward: lying, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The main argument made in his defense is that these charges surround the sexual escapades of the President and therefore should not be considered as serious as they otherwise would be.
!CITE:
1998-125:3
But there are many people in this country and some members of Congress who sincerely believe we have over concentrated on the Lewinsky event while ignoring many other charges that have been pushed aside and not fully scrutinized by the House. It must not be forgotten that a resolution to inquire into the possible impeachment of the President was introduced two months before the nation became aware of Monica Lewinsky.
!CITE:
1998-125:4
For nearly six years there has been a steady and growing concern about the legal actions of the President. These charges seem almost endless: possible bribery related to Webb Hubble, foreign government influence in the 1996 presidential election, military technology given to China, FBI files, travel office irregularities, and many others. Many Americans are not satisfied that Congress has fully investigated the events surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
!CITE:
1998-125:5
The media and the administration has concentrated on the sexual nature of the investigation and this has done a lot to distract from everything else. The process has helped to make the President appear to be a victim of government prosecutorial overkill while ignoring the odious significance of the 1,000 FBI files placed for political reasons in the White House. If corruption becomes pervasive in any administration, yet no actual fingerprints of the president are found on indicting documents, there must come a time when the “CEO” becomes responsible for the actions of his subordinates. That is certainly true in business, the military, and in each congressional office.
!CITE:
1998-125:6
There is a major irony in this impeachment proceeding. A lot has been said the last two months by members of the Judiciary Committee on both side of the aisle regarding the Constitution and how it must be upheld. But if we are witnessing all of a sudden the serious move toward obeying constitutional restraints, I will anxiously look forward to the next session when 80 percent of our routine legislation will be voted down.
!CITE:
1998-125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.
!CITE:
1998-125:8
Much has been said about the support the President continues to receive from the American people in spite of his acknowledged misconduct. It does seem that the polls and the recent election indicate the public is not inclined to remove the President from office nor reward the Republicans for their efforts to investigate the Lewinsky affair. It is quite possible as many have suggested that the current status of the economy has a lot to do with this tolerance.
!CITE:
1998-125:9
The public’s acceptance of the President’s behavior may reflect the moral standards of our age, but I’m betting there’s a lot more to it. It is true that some conservative voters, demanding the Republicans in Congress hold the President to a greater accountability, “voted” by staying home. They did not want to encourage the Republicans who were seen as being soft on Clinton for his personal behavior and for capitulating on the big government agenda of more spending, and more taxes. But hopefully there is a much more profound reason for the seemingly inconsistent position of a public who condemns the President while not having the stomach for punishing him through impeachment.
!CITE:
1998-125:10
If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government.
!CITE:
1998-125:11
The political contest, as it has always been throughout history, remains between the desire for security and the love for liberty. When economic security is provided by the government, privacy and liberty must be sacrificed. The longer a welfare state lasts the greater the conflict between government intrusiveness and our privacy. Government efficiency and need for its financing through a ruthless tax system prompts the perpetual barrage of government agents checking on everything we do.
!CITE:
1998-125:12
Fortunately, the resentment toward government for its meddling in all aspects of our lives is strong and becoming more galvanized, and that should give us hope that all is not lost.
!CITE:
1998-125:13
But this resentment must be channeled in the right direction. Belief that privacy and liberty can be protected while the welfare state is perpetuated through ever higher taxes is an unrealizable dream.
!CITE:
1998-125:14
The “sympathy”, if that’s what we want to call it, for the President reflects the instinctive nature of most Americans who resent the prying eyes of big government. It’s easy to reason: “If the President of the United States can be the subject of a ‘sting operation’ and FBI ordered tape recordings, how can any of us be secure in our homes and papers?”
!CITE:
1998-125:15
The ambivalence comes from fear that demanding privacy, even for the President, means that his actions are then condoned. And turning this into a perjury issue has been difficult.
!CITE:
1998-125:16
The President, his advisors, and the friendly media were all aware that the sexual privacy issue would distract from the serious charges and knew it was their best chance to avoid impeachment.
!CITE:
1998-125:17
But the President, this Administration and the Congress have all been hypocritical for demanding privacy for themselves yet are the arch enemies of our privacy. Although other Administrations have abused the FBI and the IRS, this Administration has systematically abused these powers like none other.
!CITE:
1998-125:18
Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution.
!CITE:
1998-125:19
Hopefully, the concept of the overly aggressive prosecutor will be condemned when it comes to overly aggressive activities of all the federal police agencies whether it’s the IRS, the BATF or any other authoritarian agency of the federal government.
!CITE:
1998-125:20
A former U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, recently told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “the philosophy of (the Attorney General’s office) the last 10 to 15 years is whatever works is right,” when it comes to enforcing federal laws which essentially all are unconstitutional. It’s this attitude by the federal police agents that the American people must reject and not only when it applies to a particular President some want to shield.
!CITE:
1998-125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.
!CITE:
1998-125:22
It’s sad but there is another example of a most egregious abuse of presidential power, committed by the President, that has gotten no attention by the special prosecutors or the Congress. That is the attempt by the President to distract from the Monica Lewinsky testimony to the Grand Jury by bombing with cruise missiles both Sudan and Afghanistan, and the now current war against Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-125:23
Two hundred million dollars were spent on an illegal act of war against innocent people. The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was just that, a pharmaceutical plant, owned by a Muslim businessman who was standing up to the Islamic fundamentalists, the same people we pretend to oppose and use as scapegoats for all our Middle-Eastern policies. And now we have the controversial and unconstitutional waging of war in Iraq.
!CITE:
1998-125:24
And to add insult to injury both military operations ordered by Clinton were quickly praised by the Republican leaders as good and necessary policy. These acts alone should be enough for a serious consideration of impeachment, but it’s never mentioned — mainly because leadership of both parties for decades have fully endorsed our jingoism and bellicosity directed toward other nations when they do not do our bidding.
!CITE:
1998-125:25
Yes, the President’s tawdry affair and the acceptance of it to a large degree by the American people is not a good sign for us as a nation. But, let’s hope that out of this we have a positive result by recognizing the public’s rejection of the snooping actions of Big Brother. Let’s hope there’s a renewed interest in the Constitution and that Congress pays a lot more attention to it on a daily basis especially when it comes to waging war.
!CITE:
1998-125:26
The fact that President Clinton will most likely escape removal from office I find less offensive than the Congress’s and the media’s lack of interest in dealing with the serious charges of flagrant abuse of power, threatening political revenge, issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders, sacrificing U.S. sovereignty to world government, bribery, and illegal acts of war, along with the routine flaunting of the constitutional restraints that were placed there to keep our government small and limited in scope.
!TITLE:
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
!DATE:
6 January 1999
!CITE:
1999-1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999. This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens. This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers’ licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier.
!CITE:
1999-1:2
The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act halts the greatest threat to liberty today: the growth of the surveillance state. Unless Congress stops authorizing the federal bureaucracy to stamp and number the American people federal officials will soon have the power to arbitrarily prevent citizens from opening a bank account, getting a job, traveling, or even seeking medical treatment unless their “papers are in order!”
!CITE:
1999-1:3
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
!CITE:
1999-1:4
Perhaps the most important part of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is the section prohibiting the use of the Social Security number as an identifier. Although it has not received as much attention as some of the other abuses this legislation addresses, the abuse of the Social Security number may pose an even more immediate threat to American liberty. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is already a national identification number. Today, in the majority of states, no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers’ license, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license! Even members of Congress must produce a Social Security number in order to vote on legislation.
!CITE:
1999-1:5
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.
!CITE:
1999-1:6
Since the creation of the Social Security number in 1935, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Many of these uses, such as the requirement that employers report the Social Security number of new employees to the “new hires data base,” have been enacted in the past few years. In fact, just last year, 210 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote.
!CITE:
1999-1:7
Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting the federal government from using identifiers to monitor private transactions is necessary to stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” for every American—an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?
!CITE:
1999-1:8
A more recent assault on privacy is a regulation proposed jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve, known as “Know Your Customer.” If this regulation takes effect in April 2000, financial institutions will be required not only to identify their customers but also their source of funds for all transactions, establish a “profile” and determine if the transaction is “normal and expected.” If a transaction does not fit the profile, banks would have to report the transaction to government regulators as “suspicious.” The unfunded mandate on financial institutions will be passed on to customers who would have to pay higher ATM and other fees and higher interest rates on loans for the privilege of being spied on by government-inspired tellers.
!CITE:
1999-1:9
Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In act, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
!CITE:
1999-1:10
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
!CITE:
1999-1:11
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the fact is the only solution is to forbid the federal government from using national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws stop the permanent violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
!CITE:
1999-1:12
Secondly, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for certain state-favored third parties. For example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient Protection Act established a property right for insurance companies to access personal health care information. Congress also authorized private individuals to receive personal information from government data bases in last year’s copyright bill. The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. Obviously, “private protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information!
!CITE:
1999-1:13
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1999-1:14
Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. My office has been inundated with calls from around the country protesting the movement toward a national ID card and encouraging my efforts to thwart this scheme. I have also received numerous complaints from Texans upset that they have to produce a Social Security number in order to receive a state drivers’ license. Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.
!CITE:
1999-1:15
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.
!TITLE:
Honoring My Friend, Baseball Legend Nolan Ryan, On His Election To The Hall Of Fame
!DATE:
6 January 1999
!CITE:
1999-2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to my long-time friend, Nolan Ryan, on the announcement of his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I’ve known Nolan for many years, and I knew him as a kind, generous man who seeks to do what is right and just. It seems there are so few heroes for kids today, especially in athletics, but I can sincerely commend Nolan Ryan as a true hero of our times, a role-model for our youth, and a man worthy of honor and respect.
!CITE:
1999-2:2
Nolan was born in Refugio, Texas, a historic town in my congressional district, but he was destined for the national stage. His successful career spanned 27 years, taking him from rural Texas to the dug-outs of the New York Mets, the California Angels, the Houston Astros and the Texas Rangers. He pitched a record seven no-hitter games, but his real fame comes from having pitched 5,714 strikeouts.
!CITE:
1999-2:3
Nolan told newspaper reporters yesterday that he never viewed himself as a “hall of famer.” For once, I have to disagree with my friend. He is Hall of Fame material not only for his prowess on the field, but for his strong character and unwavering dedication to his family, his friends, his beliefs, and his God.
!CITE:
1999-2:4
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating Nolan Ryan.
!TITLE:
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
!DATE:
2 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States.
!CITE:
1999-3:2
The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations.
!CITE:
1999-3:3
In the past several months the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about.
!CITE:
1999-3:4
A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history our presidents and our Congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were for the most part done only with constitutional approval.
!CITE:
1999-3:5
This all changed after World War II with our membership in the United Nations. As bad as it is to allow our presidents to usurp congressional authority to wage war, it is much worse for the President to share this sovereign right with an international organization that requires us to pay more than our fair share while we get a vote no greater than the rest.
!CITE:
1999-3:6
The constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America.
!CITE:
1999-3:7
The continual ranting about stopping Hussein, who is totally defenseless against our attacks, from developing weapons of mass destruction ignores the fact that more than 30,000 very real nuclear warheads are floating around the old Soviet empire.
!CITE:
1999-3:8
Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us. As a consequence, our efforts to develop long-term peaceful relations with Russia are now ending. This policy cannot enhance world peace. But instead of changing it, the President is about to expand it in another no-win centuries-old fight in Kosovo.
!CITE:
1999-3:9
It is time for Congress to declare its interest in the Constitution and take responsibility on issues that matter, like the war powers.
!TITLE:
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
!DATE:
2 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I have great concern for the future of the American Republic. Many Americans argue that we are now enjoying the best of times. Others concern themselves with problems less visible but smouldering beneath the surface. Those who are content point out that the economy is booming, we are not at war, crime rates are down, and the majority of Americans feel safe and secure in their homes and community. Others point out that economic booms, when brought about artificially with credit creation, are destined to end with a bang. The absence of overt war does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of American troops are scattered around the world in the middle of ancient fights not likely to be settled by our meddling and may escalate at any time.
!CITE:
1999-4:2
Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive.
!CITE:
1999-4:3
Madam Speaker, all Members should be concerned about the war powers now illegitimately assumed by the President, the financial bubble that will play havoc with the standard of living of most Americans when it bursts and the systemic undermining of our privacy even in this age of relative contentment.
!CITE:
1999-4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.
!CITE:
1999-4:5
Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who would be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, quote, sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war. In the debate at the Constitutional Convention it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British king was not to be, quote, a proper guide in defining executive war powers, close quote, for the newly formed republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war, issue letters of mark and reprisal, call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The President was also required to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors.
!CITE:
1999-4:6
Let there be no doubt. The President, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. However it has been recognized throughout our history that certain circumstances might require the President to act in self-defense if Congress is not readily available to act if the United States is attacked.
!CITE:
1999-4:7
Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day Presidents, including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-4:8
But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.
!CITE:
1999-4:9
This policy of allowing our Presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse to a lesser degree has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Specifically, since joining the United Nations congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined.
!CITE:
1999-4:10
Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and if we continue to allow our Presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved.
!CITE:
1999-4:11
The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers, and efforts were made to do exactly that after Vietnam in 1973 and more recently in 1995. Neither efforts were successful, and ironically the President emerged with more power, with each effort being undermined by supporters in the Congress of presidential authoritarianism and internationalism. Few objected to the Truman-ordered U.N. police actions in Korea in the 1950s, but they should have. This illegal and major war encouraged all subsequent Presidents to assume greater authority to wage war than was ever intended by the Constitution or assumed by all the Presidents prior to World War II. It is precisely because of the way we have entered in each military action since the 1940s without declaring war that their purposes have been vague and victory elusive, yet pain, suffering and long term negative consequences have resulted. The road on which this country embarked 50 years ago has led to the sacrifice of a lot of congressional prerogatives and citizen control over the excessive power that have fallen into the hands of Presidents quite willing to abuse this authority. No one person, if our society is to remain free, should be allowed to provoke war with aggressive military acts. Congress and the people are obligated to rein in this flagrant abuse of presidential power.
!CITE:
1999-4:12
Not only did we suffer greatly from the unwise and illegal Korean and Vietnam wars, Congress has allowed a continuous abuse of military power by our Presidents in an ever increasing frequency. We have seen troops needlessly die in Lebanon, Grenada, invaded for questionable reasons, Libya bombed with innocent civilians killed, persistent naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Panama invaded, Iraq bombed on numerous occasions, Somalia invaded, a secret and illegal war fought in Nicaragua, Haiti occupied, and troops stationed in Bosnia and now possibly soon in Kosovo.
!CITE:
1999-4:13
Even the Congressional permission to pursue the Persian Gulf War was an afterthought, since President Bush emphatically stated that it was unnecessary, as he received his authority from the United Nations.
!CITE:
1999-4:14
Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, and not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third world nation, unable to defend itself, Iraq.
!CITE:
1999-4:15
Great concern in the 1960’s over the excessive presidential war powers was expressed by the American people, and, thus, the interests of the U.S. Congress after Vietnam in the early 1970’s. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 resulted, but due to shrewd manipulation and political chicanery, the effort resulted in giving the President more authority, allowing him to wage war for 60 to 90 days without Congressional approval.
!CITE:
1999-4:16
Prior to the Korean War, when the Constitution and historic precedent had been followed, the President could not and for the most part did not engage in any military effort not directly defensive in nature without explicit Congressional approval.
!CITE:
1999-4:17
The result of the passage of the War Powers Resolution was exactly opposite to its authors’ intentions. More power is granted to the president to send troops hither and yon, with the various Presidents sometimes reporting to the Congress and sometimes not. But Congress has unwisely and rarely objected, and has not in recent years demanded its proper role in decisions of war, nor hesitated to continue the funding that the various presidents have demanded.
!CITE:
1999-4:18
Approval of presidential-directed aggression, disguised as “support for the troops,” comes routinely, and if any member does not obediently endorse every action a President might take, for whatever reason, it is implied the member lacks patriotism and wisdom. It is amazing how we have drifted from the responsibility of the Founders, imagine, the Congress and the people would jealously protect.
!CITE:
1999-4:19
It is too often and foolishly argued that we must permit great flexibility for the President to retaliate when American troops are in danger. But this is only after the President has invaded and placed our troops in harm’s way.
!CITE:
1999-4:20
By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world.
!CITE:
1999-4:21
The 1995 effort to repeal the War Powers Resolution failed because it was not a clean repeal, but one still requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress. This led to enough confusion to prevent its passage.
!CITE:
1999-4:22
What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide as to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th century by essentially all political parties and presidents.
!CITE:
1999-4:23
The effort to curtail presidential powers while requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress implies that that is all that is needed to avoid the strict rules laid out by the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-4:24
It was admitted in the House debate by the House leadership that the repeal actually gave the President more power to use troops overseas and therefore urged passage of the measure. This accurate assessment prompted antiwar pro-peace Republicans and Democrats to narrowly reject the proposal.
!CITE:
1999-4:25
The message here is that clarification of the War Powers Resolution and a return to constitutional law are the only way presidential authority to wage war can be curtailed. If our presidents do not act accordingly, Congress must quickly and forcefully meet its responsibility by denying funds for foreign intervention and aggression initiated by the President.
!CITE:
1999-4:26
The basic problem here is that there are still too many Members of Congress who endorse a presidency armed with the authority of a tyrant to wage war. But if this assumption of power by the President with Congress’ approval is not reversed, the republic cannot be maintained.
!CITE:
1999-4:27
Putting the power in the hands of a single person, the president, to wage war, is dangerous and costly, and it destroys the notion that the people through their Congressional representatives decide when military action should start and when war should take place.
!CITE:
1999-4:28
The sacrifice of this constitutional principle, guarded diligently for 175 years and now severely eroded in the past 50, must be restored if we hope to protect our liberties and avoid yet another unnecessary and, heaven-forbid, major world conflict, and merely changing the law will not be enough to guarantee that future presidents will not violate their trust.
!CITE:
1999-4:29
A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.
!CITE:
1999-4:30
The best of all situations is when the spirit of the republic is one and the same, as the law itself, and honorable men are in positions of responsibility to carry out the law. Even though we cannot guarantee the future Congress’ or our president’s moral commitment to the principles of liberty by changing the law, we still must make every effort possible to make the law and the Constitution as morally sound as possible.
!CITE:
1999-4:31
Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.
!CITE:
1999-4:32
On another issue, privacy, privacy is the essence of liberty. Without it, individual rights cannot exist. Privacy and property are interlocked and if both are protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized.
!CITE:
1999-4:33
Today we find a systematic and pervasive attack on the privacy of all American citizens, which undermines the principle of private property ownership. Understanding why the attack on privacy is rapidly expanding and recognizing a need to reverse this trend is necessary if our republic is to survive.
!CITE:
1999-4:34
Lack of respect for the privacy and property of the American colonists by the British throne was a powerful motivation for the American revolution and resulted in the strongly worded and crystal clear Fourth Amendment.
!CITE:
1999-4:35
Emphatically, searches and seizures are prohibited except when warrants are issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, with details listed given as to place, person and things to be seized.
!CITE:
1999-4:36
This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the Federal Government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by Federal agents without announcement, and huge fines are levied when Federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines.
!CITE:
1999-4:37
Eighty thousand armed Federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers now patrol our land and business establishments. Suspicious religious groups are monitored and sometimes destroyed without due process of law, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Local and state jurisdiction is rarely recognized once the feds move in.
!CITE:
1999-4:38
Today, it is routine for government to illegally seize property, requiring the victims to prove their innocence in order to retrieve their property, and many times this fails due to the expense and legal roadblocks placed in the victim’s way.
!CITE:
1999-4:39
Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier.
!CITE:
1999-4:40
The Social Security number is now commonly used for just about everything, getting a birth certificate, buying a car, seeing an MD, getting a job, opening up a bank account, getting a driver’s license, making many routine purchases, and, of course, a death certificate. Cradle-to-the-grave government surveillance is here and daily getting more pervasive.
!CITE:
1999-4:41
The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must by its very nature allow this precious right to erode.
!CITE:
1999-4:42
A political system designed as ours was to protect life and liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy, and this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as in our legislative bodies.
!CITE:
1999-4:43
The promoters of government instruction into our privacy characteristically use worn out cliches to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?
!CITE:
1999-4:44
This is ludicrous. We have nothing to hide in our homes or our bedrooms, but that is no reason why big brother should be permitted to monitor us with a surveillance camera.
!CITE:
1999-4:45
The same can be argued about our churches, our businesses or any peaceful action we may pursue. Our personal activities are no one else’s business. We may have nothing to hide, but, if we are not careful, we have plenty to lose, our right to be left alone.
!CITE:
1999-4:46
Others argue that to operate government programs efficiently and without fraud, close monitoring is best achieved with an universal identifier, the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1999-4:47
Efficiency and protection from fraud may well be enhanced with the use of a universal identifier, but this contradicts the whole notion of the proper role for government in a free society.
!CITE:
1999-4:48
Most of the Federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.
!CITE:
1999-4:49
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.
!CITE:
1999-4:50
Believe me, most of the evil done by elected congresses and parliaments throughout all of history has been justified by good intentions. But that does not change anything. It just makes it harder to stop.
!CITE:
1999-4:51
Therefore, we cannot ignore the motivations behind those who promote the welfare state. Bad ideas, if implemented, whether promoted by men of bad intentions or good, will result in bad results.
!CITE:
1999-4:52
Well-intentioned people, men of goodwill, should, however, respond to a persuasive argument. Ignorance is the enemy of sound policy, every bit as much as political corruption.
!CITE:
1999-4:53
Various management problems in support for welfarism motivates those who argue for only a little sacrifice of freedom to achieve a greater good for society. Each effort to undermine our privacy is easily justified.
!CITE:
1999-4:54
The national I.D. card is needed, it is said, to detect illegal aliens, yet all Americans will need it to open up a bank account, get a job, fly on an airplane, see a doctor, go to school or drive a car.
!CITE:
1999-4:55
Financial privacy must be sacrificed, it is argued, in order to catch money launderers, drug dealers, mobsters and tax cheats. Privacy for privacy’s sake, unfortunately for many, is a nonissue.
!CITE:
1999-4:56
The recent know-your-customer plan was designed by Richard Small, Assistant Director of the Division of Banking Supervision Regulation at the Federal Reserve. He is not happy with all of the complaints that he has received regarding this proposal. His program will require that every bank keep a detailed profile on every customer, as to how much is deposited, where it comes from, and when and how the money is spent. If there is any deviation from the profile on record, the bank is required to report this to a half dozen government agencies, which will require the customer to do a lot of explaining. This program will catch few drug dealers, but will surely infringe on the liberty of every law-abiding citizen.
!CITE:
1999-4:57
After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.
!CITE:
1999-4:58
He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.
!CITE:
1999-4:59
For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research is made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused.
!CITE:
1999-4:60
The IRS and the DEA, with powers illegally given them by the Congress and the courts, have prompted a flood of seizures and forfeitures in the last several decades without due process and frequently without search warrants or probable cause. Victims then are required to prove themselves innocent to recover the goods seized.
!CITE:
1999-4:61
This flagrant and systematic abuse of privacy may well turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Like the public schools, it may provide the incentive for Americans finally to do something about the system.
!CITE:
1999-4:62
The disaster state of the public school system has prompted millions of parents to provide private or home schooling for their children. The worse the government schools get, the more the people resort to a private option, even without tax relief from the politicians. This is only possible as long as some remnant of our freedom remains, and these options are permitted. We cannot become complacent.
!CITE:
1999-4:63
Hopefully, a similar reaction will occur in the area of privacy, but overcoming the intrusiveness of government into our privacy in nearly every aspect of our lives will be difficult. Home schooling is a relatively simple solution compared to avoiding the roving and snooping high of big brother. Solving the privacy problem requires an awakening by the American people with a strong message being sent to the U.S. Congress that we have had enough.
!CITE:
1999-4:64
Eventually, stopping this systematic intrusion into our privacy will require challenging the entire welfare state. Socialism and welfarism self-destruct after a prolonged period of time due to their natural inefficiencies and national bankruptcy. As the system ages, more and more efforts are made to delay its demise by borrowing, inflating and coercion. The degree of violation of our privacy is a measurement of the coercion thought necessary by the proponents of authoritarianism to continue the process.
!CITE:
1999-4:65
The privacy issue invites a serious discussion between those who seriously believe welfare redistribution helps the poor and does not violate anyone’s rights, and others who promote policies that undermine privacy in an effort to reduce fraud and waste to make the programs work efficiently, even if they disagree with the programs themselves. This opportunity will actually increase as it becomes more evident that our country is poorer than most believe and sustaining the welfare state at current levels will prove impossible. An ever-increasing invasion of our privacy will force everyone eventually to reconsider the efficiency of the welfare state, if the welfare of the people is getting worse and their privacy invaded.
!CITE:
1999-4:66
Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says.
!CITE:
1999-4:67
THE FINANCIAL BUBBLE
On a third item, the financial bubble, a huge financial bubble engulfs the world financial markets. This bubble has been developing for a long time but has gotten much larger the last couple of years. Understanding this issue is critical to the economic security of all Americans that we all strive to protect.
!CITE:
1999-4:68
Credit expansion is the root cause of all financial bubbles. Fiat monetary systems inevitably cause unsustainable economic expansion that results in a recession and/or depression. A correction always results, with the degree and duration being determined by government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy. If wages and prices are not allowed to adjust and the correction is thwarted by invigorated monetary expansion, new and sustained economic growth will be delayed or prevented. Financial dislocation caused by central banks in the various countries will differ from one to another due to political perceptions, military considerations, and reserve currency status.
!CITE:
1999-4:69
The U.S.’s ability to inflate has been dramatically enhanced by other countries’ willingness to absorb our inflated currency, our dollar being the reserve currency of the world. Foreign central banks now hold in reserve over $600 billion, an amount significantly greater than that even held by our own Federal Reserve System. Our economic and military power gives us additional license to inflate our currency, thus delaying the inevitable correction inherent in a paper money system. But this only allows for a larger bubble to develop, further jeopardizing our future economy.
!CITE:
1999-4:70
Because of the significance of the dollar to the world economy, our inflation and the dollar-generated bubble is much more dangerous than single currency inflation such as Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and others. The significance of these inflations, however, cannot be dismissed.
!CITE:
1999-4:71
The Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, when the Dow was at approximately 6,500, cautioned the Nation about irrational exuberance and for a day or two the markets were subdued. But while openly worrying about an unsustained stock market boom, he nevertheless accelerated the very credit expansion that threatened the market and created the irrational exuberance.
!CITE:
1999-4:72
From December 1996, at the time that Greenspan made this statement, to December 1998, the money supply soared. Over $1 trillion of new money, as measured by M–3, was created by the Federal Reserve. MZM, another monetary measurement, is currently expanding at a rate greater than 20 percent. This generous dose of credit has sparked even more irrational exuberance, which has taken the Dow to over 9,000 for a 30 percent increase in just two years.
!CITE:
1999-4:73
When the foreign registered corporation long term capital management was threatened in 1998, that is, the market demanding a logical correction to its own exuberance with its massive $1 trillion speculative investment in the derivatives market, Greenspan and company quickly came to its rescue with an even greater acceleration of credit expansion.
!CITE:
1999-4:74
The pain of market discipline is never acceptable when compared to the pleasure of postponing hard decisions and enjoying for a while longer the short-term benefits gained by keeping the financial bubble inflated. But the day is fast approaching when the markets and Congress will have to deal with the attack on the dollar, once it is realized that exporting our inflation is not without limits.
!CITE:
1999-4:75
A hint of what can happen when the world gets tired of holding too many of our dollars was experienced in the dollar crisis of 1979 and 1980, and we saw at that time interest rates over 21 percent. There is abundant evidence around warning us of the impending danger. According to Federal Reserve statistics, household debt reached 81 percent of personal income in the second quarter of 1998. For 20 years prior to 1985, household debt averaged around 50 percent of personal income. Between 1985 and 1998, due to generous Federal Reserve credit, competent American consumers increased this to 81 percent and now it is even higher. At the same time, our savings rate has dropped to zero percent.
!CITE:
1999-4:76
The conviction that stock prices will continue to provide extra cash and confidence in the economy has fueled wild consumer spending and personal debt expansion. The home refinance index between 1997 and 1999 increased 700 percent. Secondary mortgages are now offered up to 120 percent of a home’s equity, with many of these funds finding their way into the stock market. Generous credit and quasi-government agencies make these mortgage markets robust, but a correction will come when it is realized that the builders and the lenders have gotten ahead of themselves.
!CITE:
1999-4:77
The willingness of foreign entities to take and hold our dollars has generated a huge current account deficit for the United States. It is expected a $200 billion annual deficit that we are running now will accelerate to over $300 billion in 1999, unless the financial bubble bursts.
!CITE:
1999-4:78
This trend has made us the greatest international debtor in the world, with a negative net international asset position of more than $1.7 trillion. A significantly weakened dollar will play havoc when this bill comes due and foreign debt holders demand payment.
!CITE:
1999-4:79
Contributing to the bubble and the dollar strength has been the fact that even though the dollar has problems, other currencies are even weaker and thus make the dollar look strong in comparison. Budgetary figures are frequently stated in a falsely optimistic manner. In 1969 when there was a surplus of approximately $3 billion, the national debt went down approximately the same amount. In 1998, however, with a so-called surplus of $70 billion, the national debt went up $113 billion, and instead of the surpluses which are not really surpluses running forever, the deficits will rise with a weaker economy and current congressional plans to increase welfare and warfare spending.
!CITE:
1999-4:80
Government propaganda promotes the false notion that inflation is no longer a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dangerous financial bubble, a result of the Federal Reserve’s deliberate policy of inflation and the Fed’s argument that there is no inflation according to government-concocted CPI figures, is made to justify a continuous policy of monetary inflation because they are terrified of the consequence of deflation. The Federal Reserve may sincerely believe maintaining the status quo, preventing price inflation and delaying deflation is possible, but it really is not.
!CITE:
1999-4:81
The most astute money manager cannot balance inflation against deflation as long as there is continued credit expansion. The system inevitably collapses, as it finally did in Japan in the 1990s. Even the lack of the CPI inflation as reported by the Federal Reserve is suspect.
!CITE:
1999-4:82
A CPI of all consumer items measured by the private source shows approximately a 400 percent increase in prices since 1970. Most Americans realize their dollars are buying less each year and no chance exists for the purchasing power of the dollar to go up. Just because prices of TVs and computers may go down, the cost of medicine, food, stocks and entertainment, and of course, government, certainly can rise rapidly.
!CITE:
1999-4:83
One characteristic of an economy that suffers from a constantly debased currency is sluggish or diminished growth in real income. In spite of our so-called great economic recovery, two-thirds of U.S. workers for the past 25 years have had stagnant or falling wages. The demands for poverty relief from government agencies continue to increase. Last year alone, 678,000 jobs were lost due to downsizing. The new service sector jobs found by many of those laid off are rarely as good paying.
!CITE:
1999-4:84
In the last 1 1/2 years, various countries have been hit hard with deflationary pressures. In spite of the IMF-led bailouts of nearly $200 billion, the danger of a worldwide depression remains. Many countries, even with the extra dollars sent to them courtesy of the American taxpayer, suffer devaluation and significant price inflation in their home currency.
!CITE:
1999-4:85
But this, although helpful to banks lending overseas, has clearly failed, has cost a lot of money, and prevents the true market correction of liquidation of debt that must eventually come. The longer the delay and the more dollars used, the greater the threat to the dollar in the future.
!CITE:
1999-4:86
There is good reason why we in the Congress should be concerned. A dollar crisis is an economic crisis that will threaten the standard of living of many Americans. Economic crises frequently lead to political crises, as is occurring in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1999-4:87
Congress is responsible for the value of the dollar. Yet, as we have done too often in other areas, we have passed this responsibility on to someone else; in this case, to the Federal Reserve.
!CITE:
1999-4:88
The Constitution is clear that the Congress has responsibility for guaranteeing the value of the currency, and no authority has ever been given to create a central bank. Creating money out of thin air is counterfeiting, even when done by a bank that the Congress tolerates.
!CITE:
1999-4:89
It is easy to see why Congress, with its own insatiable desire to spend money and perpetuate a welfare and military state, cooperates with such a system. A national debt of $5.6 trillion could not have developed without a willing Federal Reserve to monetize this debt and provide for artificially low interest rates. But when the dollar crisis hits and it is clearly evident that the short-term benefits were not worth it, we will be forced to consider monetary reform.
!CITE:
1999-4:90
Reconsidering the directives given us in the Constitution with regard to money would go a long way towards developing a sound monetary system that best protects our economy and guides us away from casually going to war. Monetary reform is something that we ought to be thinking about now.
!CITE:
1999-4:91
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.
!CITE:
1999-4:92
Too often the American people have chosen security over liberty. Allowing the President a little authority to deal with world problems under a U.N. banner has been easier than reversing the trend of the past 50 years. Accepting the financial bubble when on the short run, it helps everyone’s portfolio, helps to finance government spending, is easy, even if it only delays the day of reckoning when the bills come due, as they already have in so many other countries in the world.
!CITE:
1999-4:93
Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society.
!CITE:
1999-4:94
Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous, and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal.
!TITLE:
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
!DATE:
9 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, our presidents have been sending troops overseas without Congressional approval. Prior to World War II, it was traditional and constitutional that all presidents came to the Congress for authority to send troops.
!CITE:
1999-5:2
Recently, the President has announced that he will most likely be sending thousands of American troops under NATO command to Kosovo. I think this is wrong. I have introduced legislation today that says that the President cannot send these troops without Congressional approval, merely restating what the Constitution says and how we followed the rules up until World War II.
!CITE:
1999-5:3
Three years ago, the President sent troops into Bosnia and said they would be there for 6 months. They have been there now 3 years. We have spent over $20 billion. Nobody even asks hardly at all anymore when these troops will be coming home.
!CITE:
1999-5:4
We have been bombing and interfering with the security of Iraq for now over 8 years, and that continues, and we do not give Congressional approval of these acts. My legislation is simple. It just denies funding for sending troops into Kosovo without Congressional approval.
!CITE:
1999-5:5
This is not complicated. It is very precise and very clear and very important that we as a Congress restate our constitutional obligation to supervise the sending of troops around the world.
!CITE:
1999-5:6
It would be much better for us to spend this money that is being wasted in Bosnia and Iraq on our national defense. We spend less and less money every year on national defense but we spend more and more money on policing the world. I think that policy ought to change and it is the responsibility of the Congress, the body that has control of the purse strings, to do something about this.
!CITE:
1999-5:7
If the President is permitted to do this, he does it not because he has constitutional authority but because the Congress has reneged on their responsibility to supervise the spending.
!CITE:
1999-5:8
It is a bit ironic now that we are sending or planning to send troops to Kosovo. We have all read about and heard the horrible stories about the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, and yet our troops going to Kosovo are going to be sent with the intention that Kosovo cannot be independent; that they will not be able to separate themselves from Serbia; that they cannot decide under what government they want to live.
!CITE:
1999-5:9
It is also interesting that one of the jobs of the troops in NATO, if they go into Kosovo, will be to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army. That is hardly good sense. First, it is not good sense for us to give the permission or renege on our responsibility, but it does not make good sense to get involved in a war that has been going on for many years, but it certainly does not make good sense for us to go in for the sole purpose of supporting Milosevic. He is the one that has been bombing the Kosovars and here we are, we want to disarm the liberation forces and at the same time prevent Kosovo from becoming independent.
!CITE:
1999-5:10
The issue here is money, but there is also a bigger issue and that is the responsibility that we have to decide when troops should be sent. Once troops are sent into a foreign country, it is very difficult for us to bring our troops home.
!CITE:
1999-5:11
Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States. They will not help our national security. It will drain funds that should be spent on national defense. At the same time it will jeopardize our national security by endangering our troops and raising the possibility of us becoming involved in a war spreading through the Balkans. This should not occur.
!CITE:
1999-5:12
So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my fellow colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation just to say that it is not the prerogative of the President to send troops around the world whenever he pleases. That is the prerogative of the Congress.
!CITE:
1999-5:13
I do know that it has not been stated this clearly in the last 40 years, but it is about time we did. And besides, one thing more, the President has admitted, at least it has been in print, that he is likely to place these troops under a foreign commander, under a British general.
!CITE:
1999-5:14
Mr. Speaker, we do not need this. We need to restrain the President’s ability to send troops.
!TITLE:
Introducing Legislation To Prevent Expansion Of American Military Intervention Without Congressional Approval
!DATE:
11 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-6:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, we have troops in 144 countries of the world today. President Clinton has announced that he will now send troops to Kosovo. We are bombing in Iraq on a daily basis. We have been in Bosnia now for three years, although we were supposed to be there for six months. We should not go into Kosovo; we should not go there, absolutely, without congressional approval.
!CITE:
1999-6:2
I have introduced legislation that will prevent the President from sending troops to further expand our intervention around the world without congressional approval. This is very, very important. We are spending so much money on intervention in so many countries around the world at the same time our national defense is being diminished. Worst of all, the President is planning to put these thousands of troops under a British commander.
!CITE:
1999-6:3
It is time we took it upon ourselves to exert our authority to restrain the President in spreading troops around the world.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act
!DATE:
11 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 forces contractors on all federally-funded contraction projects to pay the “local prevailing wage,” defined as “the wage paid to the majority of the laborers or mechanics in the classification on similar projects in the area.” In practice, this usually means the wages paid by unionized contractors. For more than sixty years, this congressionally-created monstrosity has penalized taxpayers and the most efficient companies while crushing the dreams of the most willing workers. Mr. Speaker, Congress must act now to repeal this 61-year-old relic of an era during which people actually believed Congress could legislate prosperity. Americans pay a huge price in lost jobs, lost opportunities and tax-boosting cost overruns on federal construction projects every day Congress allows Davis-Bacon to remain on the books.
!CITE:
1999-7:2
Davis-Bacon artificially inflates construction costs through a series of costly work rules and requirements. For instance, under Davis-Bacon, workers who perform a variety of tasks must be paid at the highest applicable skilled journeyman rate. Thus, a general laborer who hammers a nail must now be classified as a “carpenter,” and paid as much as three times the company’s regular rate. As a result of this, unskilled workers can be employed only if the company can afford to pay the government-determined “prevailing wages” and training can be provided only through a highly regulated apprenticeship program. Some experts have estimated the costs of complying with the paperwork imposed on contractors by Davis-Bacon regulations at nearly $200 million a year. Of course, this doesn’t measure the costs in lost job opportunities because firms could not afford to hire an inexperienced worker.
!CITE:
1999-7:3
Most small construction firms cannot afford to operate under Davis-Bacon’s rigid job classifications or hire the staff of lawyers and accountants needed to fill out the extensive paperwork required to bid on a federal contract. Therefore, Davis-Bacon prevents small firms from bidding on federal construction projects, which, unfortunately, constitute 20 percent of all construction projects in the United States.
!CITE:
1999-7:4
Because most minority-owned construction firms are small companies, Davis-Bacon keeps minority-owned firms from competing for federal construction contracts. The resulting disparities in employment create a demand for affirmative action, another ill-suited and ill-advised big government program.
!CITE:
1999-7:5
The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping “cheap colored labor” out of the construction industry.
!CITE:
1999-7:6
In addition to opening up new opportunities in the construction industry for smaller construction firms and their employees, repeal of Davis-Bacon would also return common sense and sound budgeting to federal contracting which is now rife with political favoritism and cronyism. An audit conducted earlier this year by the Labor Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that inaccurate data were frequently used in Davis-Bacon wage determination. Although the Inspector General’s report found no evidence of deliberate fraud, it did uncover material errors in five states’ wage determinations, causing wages or fringe benefits for certain crafts to be overstated by as much as $1.08 per hour!
!CITE:
1999-7:7
The most compelling reason to repeal Davis-Bacon is to benefit to the American taxpayer. The Davis-Bacon Act drives up the cost of federal construction costs by as much as 50 percent. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that repealing Davis-Bacon would save the American taxpayer almost three billion dollars in four years!
!CITE:
1999-7:8
Mr. Speaker, it is time to finally end this patently unfair, wildly inefficient and grossly discriminatory system of bidding on federal construction contracts. Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act will save taxpayers billions of dollars on federal construction costs, return common sense and sound budgeting to federal contracting, and open up opportunities in the construction industry to those independent contractors, and their employees, who currently cannot bid on federal projects because they cannot afford the paperwork requirements imposed by this act. I, therefore, urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999.
!TITLE:
President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval
!DATE:
24 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the threats of bombing did not bring a peace agreement to Kosovo. The President has no authority to wage war, and yet Congress says nothing.
!CITE:
1999-8:2
When will Congress assume its war power authority to rein in the President? An endless military occupation of Bosnia is ignored by Congress, and the spending rolls on, and yet there is no lasting peace.
!CITE:
1999-8:3
For 9 years, bombing Iraq and killing innocent Iraqi children with sanctions has done nothing to restore stability to Iraq, but it has served to instill an ever-growing hatred toward America. It is now clear that the threats of massive bombing of Serbia have not brought peace to Kosovo.
!CITE:
1999-8:4
Congress must assume its responsibility. It must be made clear that the President has no funds available to wage war without congressional approval. This is our prerogative. Therefore, the endless threats of bombing should cease. Congress should not remain timid.
!CITE:
1999-8:5
Merely telling the President to reconsider his actions will have little effect. We must be firm and deny the funds to wage war without our consent. We live in a republic, not a monarchy.
!TITLE:
Federal Communications Commission
!DATE:
25 February 1999
!CITE:
1999-9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.
!CITE:
1999-9:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hand their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the plunge into New Deal Socialism.
!CITE:
1999-9:3
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1999-9:4
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1999-9:5
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions—it is called competition and governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
!CITE:
1999-9:6
As government becomes more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
!CITE:
1999-9:7
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 514.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
!DATE:
2 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act of 1999. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.
!CITE:
1999-10:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of, if not the top priority of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of their time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. I propose we go in a different direction by embracing true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.
!CITE:
1999-10:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful Representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.
!CITE:
1999-10:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over the ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.
!CITE:
1999-10:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-funded vouchers.
!CITE:
1999-10:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, “who should control the education dollar—politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?” Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act of 1999.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act
!DATE:
2 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act of 1999, a bill to empower millions of working- and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes its goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.
!CITE:
1999-11:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.
!CITE:
1999-11:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.
!CITE:
1999-11:4
Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a recent study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
!CITE:
1999-11:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
!CITE:
1999-11:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.
!CITE:
1999-11:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Although public schools are traditionally financed through local taxes, increasingly, parents who wish their children to receive a quality education may wish to use their credit to improve their schools by helping financing the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extra-curricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.
!CITE:
1999-11:8
Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to improve public schools than funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the public schools. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
!CITE:
1999-11:9
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful method, of educating children. According to recent studies, home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.
!CITE:
1999-11:10
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.
!CITE:
1999-11:11
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Teacher Tax Cut Act
!DATE:
2 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Cut Act. This bill provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit, thus raising every teacher’s take-home pay without increasing federal spending. Passage of this bill is a major first step toward treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals teachers are underappreciated and underpaid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world!
!CITE:
1999-12:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance to education distract us from our important work of removing government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.
!CITE:
1999-12:3
Since America’s teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed, the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes. Simply by raising teacher’s take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit we can accomplish a number of important things. First, we show a true commitment to education. We also let America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality professionals to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.
!CITE:
1999-12:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask my colleagues to put aside partisan bickering and unite around the idea of helping educators by supporting the Teacher Tax Cut Act.
!TITLE:
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
!DATE:
9 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.
!CITE:
1999-13:2
We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq.
!CITE:
1999-13:3
That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows.
!CITE:
1999-13:4
The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby our Nation commits itself to war.
!CITE:
1999-13:5
Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the rule of law has been undermined. The President has no war power, only the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.
!CITE:
1999-13:6
The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.
!CITE:
1999-13:7
Some claim that the Kosovo involvement must be clarified as to where the money will come to finance it, the surplus or Social Security. This misses the point. We have and should exert the power of the purse, but a political argument over surpluses versus Social Security is hardly the issue.
!CITE:
1999-13:8
Others have said that support should be withheld until an exit strategy is clearly laid out. But the debate should not be over the exit strategy. It is the entry process that counts.
!CITE:
1999-13:9
The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation.
!CITE:
1999-13:10
In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the President and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the funds would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be easy: when we win the war.
!CITE:
1999-13:11
Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution.
!TITLE:
Honoring The Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders Of Victoria, Texas
!DATE:
10 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the winners of the National High School Cheerleading Championship sponsored by the Universal Cheerleaders Association — the Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders from Victoria, Texas. Under the able leadership of Denise Neel and Terese Reese, the squad of teens took the title for 1999 following an impressive history of second place in 1998, and third place in 1997. Each year, the cheerleaders set their mark higher, worked harder, trained longer, and kept their eyes on their goal. Their training and perseverance paid off when they brought the national trophy home to their school.
!CITE:
1999-14:2
The cheerleaders competed against a field of 74 squads in the Medium Varsity Division to reach the national trials. There, they competed against the thirteen regional finalists, coming out on top. The VHS cheerleading team is the first Texas squad to ever win the National Championship.
!CITE:
1999-14:3
In addition to their cheerleading duties which include cheering at every sporting event held by their school and a rigorous practice schedule, each of these girls must maintain a grade of at least 80 in each class. They also participate in numerous community activities, such as the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life and the March of Dimes Walk America. Additionally, they worked with the elementary and middle schools during TAAS testing and Red Ribbon Week, and the Gulf Bend Mental Health-Mental Retardation during Friendship Fest.
!CITE:
1999-14:4
This group of students deserve the honor they have earned. I commend each one of them:
!CITE:
1999-14:5
Liz Lasater and Kendra Serold — Co-Head Cheerleaders Natalie Cole Leah Green Melissa Myers Laurie Beck Lindy Burns Amy Reimann Amber Clemmons Sara Dickson Courtney Horecka Haley Kolle Amanda Rodriquez Karla Sterne Melissa Keefe Chelsie Luhn Sara Carville
!CITE:
1999-14:6
I am proud to have these national champions in the 14th Congressional District of Texas, and trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating them on this impressive achievement.
!TITLE:
Tribute To The Bay City Girls Softball Association
!DATE:
10 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, later this month I will attend the 40th anniversary celebration of the Bay City Girls Softball Association. The Association has a distinguished history of providing recreational opportunities to girls in Bay City, Texas.
!CITE:
1999-15:2
Begun in 1959 with the fielding of the Delta Sparks by Lila Ray and Jerry Babik, currently the association serves youth ages 4 to 18. Among the honors received by the group are induction in 1975 of the Bay City VIPs led by Coach Ratliff into to the National Amateur Softball Association Hall of Fame, and the receipt of the National Association’s “Most Improved Award” in 1944.
!CITE:
1999-15:3
With heroic community leaders like Jack Rice and Palmer Robbins and recent activists such as Mike Mariner, Judd Perry, J.B. Smith and Dennis Mueck the business of preparing and making available playing fields for the association has been a real community effort in Bay City.
!CITE:
1999-15:4
And, with a storied history including legendary players like Patty Branagan, Diane Herreth, Carol Ray, Jeannie Mathis, Linda Babik, Diana Slliva and Connie Brooks and renowned coach Lila Ray the ladies have certainly made the most of these opportunities.
!CITE:
1999-15:5
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and congratulate the Bay City Girls Softball Association and all the community activists who contribute to this association, on this the 40th Anniversary celebration of this important group.
!TITLE:
Introducing The Clergy Freedom Of Choice Act
!DATE:
10 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Clergy Freedom of Choice Act. Under current law, clergy may opt out of Social Security within 2 years of ordination. My legislation extends this provision, to allow clergy to opt out at any time in their career.
!CITE:
1999-16:2
For some clergy, they will choose to opt out for religious reasons, while others will do so because their particular denomination, sect or organization makes other arrangements for their retirement. It is important to note that this opt-out will only apply to income derived from pastoral duties.
!CITE:
1999-16:3
I expect this legislation to be non-controversial, as it simply extends the current opt-out option for our religious leaders, providing them with a way to exercise their freedom of choice.
!CITE:
1999-16:4
I ask my colleagues to join me in giving our pastors, priests, rabbis, and other clergy this choice.
!TITLE:
Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention
!DATE:
11 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership for allowing this debate to come to the floor. I have, for quite a few weeks, advocated that we talk about this and have urge that the troops never be sent to Kosovo without our consent. I do believe, though, that the process here is less than perfect. The fact that we are talking about a House Concurrent Resolution at the same time authorizing troop deployment raises serious questions.
!CITE:
1999-17:2
Since World War II we have not been diligent here in the Congress to protect our prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. Korean and Vietnam wars were fought without a declaration of war. And these wars were not won.
!CITE:
1999-17:3
Since 1973, since the War Powers Resolution was passed, we have further undermined the authority of the Congress and delivered more authority to the President because the resolution essentially has given the President more power to wage war up to 90 days without the Congress granting authority. It is to our credit at least that we are bringing this matter up at this particular time.
!CITE:
1999-17:4
We must remember that there are various things involved here. First, whether or not we should be the world policeman. That answer should be easy. We should not be. It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, and it undermines our military strength. So we should consider that.
!CITE:
1999-17:5
We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution and just exactly how we grant authority to the President to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.
!CITE:
1999-17:6
The bigger question here, however, is if we vote for this, and I strongly oppose passing this, because if we vote for this, we authorize the moving of troops into a dangerous area. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to vote for this resolution; are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our children or our grandchildren; to not only be exposed to the danger, with the pretext we are going to save the world, but with the idea that we may lose our life? That is what we have to consider.
!TITLE:
Kosovo War Resolution
!DATE:
11 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-18:1
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.)
!CITE:
1999-18:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fowler amendment and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 42.
!CITE:
1999-18:3
Today we are going to have a vote on whether or not troops should be authorized to go to Kosovo. If we vote in favor of this, we are voting for war. This is not a war resolution in the conventional sense of the Constitution, but in this day and age it is about as close as we are going to come to since we have ignored the Constitution with regards to war powers essentially since World War II. If we vote for troops to go to Kosovo, we are complicit in a potential war and the responsibility should be on the shoulders of those who vote to send the troops.
!CITE:
1999-18:4
I strongly urge that we not send the troops. It is not our fight. We are not the policemen of the world. It weakens our national defense. There are numerous reasons why we do not need to send more troops into another country someplace around the world. Every time we do this it just leads to the next problem.
!CITE:
1999-18:5
It is said that we should not have much to say about foreign policy because the Constitution has given responsibility to the President. The term “foreign policy” does not even exist in the Constitution. The President has been given the authority to be the Commander-in-Chief; to lead the troops after we direct him as to what he should do. He is the commander. We do not have a military commander, we have a civilian commander. But we do not forego our right to debate and be concerned about what is happening on issues of troop deployment and war.
!CITE:
1999-18:6
A report put out by those who sponsor this resolution had this to say. “This measure does not address the underlying question of the merits or misgivings of sending U.S. forces into Kosovo.” We are not even supposed to debate the merits and misgivings of sending troops. Why not? “Instead, the purpose of this resolution” they go on to say, “is to give the House an opportunity to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of authorizing the deployment of U.S. troops into potentially hostile situations.” In other words, we are to do nothing more than rubber stamp what the President has asked for.
!CITE:
1999-18:7
Where does the President claim he gets his authority? Does he come to us? Has he asked us for this? No, he assumes he has the authority. He has already threatened that what we do here will have no effect on his decision. He is going to do what he thinks he should do anyway. He does not come and ask for permission. Where does he get this authority? Sometimes the Presidents, since World War II, have assumed it comes from the United Nations. That means that Congress has reneged on its responsibility.
!CITE:
1999-18:8
We do not just give it to the President, we give it to the President plus the United Nations or NATO. And when we joined NATO and the United Nations, it was explicitly said it was not to be inferred that this takes away the sovereignty and the decision-making powers of the individual countries and their legislative bodies. And yet we have now, for quite a few decades, allowed this power to gravitate into the hands of the President.
!CITE:
1999-18:9
After Vietnam there was a great deal of concern about this power to wage war. First, we had Korea. We did not win that war. Next we had Vietnam. And with very sincere intent, the Congress in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution. The tragedy of the War Powers Resolution, no matter how well motivated, is that it did exactly the opposite of what was intended.
!CITE:
1999-18:10
What has actually happened is it has been interpreted by all our Presidents since then that they have the authority to wage war for 60–90 days before we can say anything. That is wrong. We have turned it upside down. So it is up to us to do something about getting the prerogative of waging war back into the hands of the Congress.
!CITE:
1999-18:11
It is said that we do not have this authority; that we should give it to the President; that he has it under the Constitution based on his authority to formulate foreign policy. It is not there. The Congress has the responsibility to declare war, write letters of marks and reprisals, call up the militia, raise and train army and regulate foreign commerce. The President shares with the Senate treaty power as well as appointment of ambassadors. The President cannot even do that alone.
!CITE:
1999-18:12
We have the ultimate power, and that is the power of the purse. If the power of the purse is given up, then we lose everything. Because we have not assumed our responsibilities up until this point, it is up to us to declare that the President cannot spend money in this manner. I have legislation that would take care of this; that the President cannot place troops in Kosovo unless he gets explicit authority from us to do so. If he does it, the monies should be denied to the President, unless we want to be complicit in this dangerous military adventurism.
!TITLE:
Consumer Protection Legislation
!DATE:
11 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Consumer Protection Package — consisting of two pieces of legislation which will benefit consumers by repealing federal regulations. The first piece of legislation, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act, stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health. The second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.
!CITE:
1999-19:2
The Consumer Health Free Speech Act accomplishes its goal by making two simple changes in the Food and Drug Act. First, it adds the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug,” thus allowing food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.
!CITE:
1999-19:3
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
!CITE:
1999-19:4
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Consumer Health Free Speech Act ends this breakfast table censorship.
!CITE:
1999-19:5
The bill’s second provision prevents the FDA’s arbitrary removal of a product from the marketplace, absent finding a dietary supplement “presents a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” Current law allows the FDA to remove a supplement if it prevents a “significant or unreasonable” risk of disease. This standard has allowed the FDA to easily remove a targeted herb or dietary supplement since every food, herb, or dietary supplement contains some risk to at least a few sensitive or allergic persons. Under this bill, the FDA will maintain its ability to remove products from the marketplace under an expedited process if they determine the product causes an “imminent danger.”
!CITE:
1999-19:6
Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
!CITE:
1999-19:7
My second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. For the last several weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural satellite TV customers who are upset because their satellite service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs.
!CITE:
1999-19:8
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
!CITE:
1999-19:9
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
!CITE:
1999-19:10
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
!CITE:
1999-19:11
Mr. Speaker, these two bills take a step toward restoring the right of free speech in the marketplace and restoring the American consumer’s control over the means by which they cast their “dollar votes.” In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. The federal government should also not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television on the free market. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Consumer Protection Package: the Consumer Health Free Speech Act and the Television Consumer Freedom Act.
!TITLE:
War Powers Resolution
!DATE:
17 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week the House narrowly passed a watered-down House concurrent resolution originally designed to endorse President Clinton’s plan to send U.S. troops to Kosovo. A House concurrent resolution, whether strong or weak, has no effect of law. It is merely a sense of Congress statement.
!CITE:
1999-20:2
If last week’s meager debate and vote are construed as merely an endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton’s policy in Yugoslavia, the procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a Congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the process to restore Congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.
!CITE:
1999-20:3
Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.
!CITE:
1999-20:4
This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action.
!CITE:
1999-20:5
Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.
!CITE:
1999-20:6
Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared “the Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo.”
!CITE:
1999-20:7
If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The President can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.
!CITE:
1999-20:8
Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.
!CITE:
1999-20:9
Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein’s power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.
!CITE:
1999-20:10
The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States’ plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? “This violence is all America’s fault,” one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?
!CITE:
1999-20:11
Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world’s humanitarian policeman.
!CITE:
1999-20:12
Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.
!CITE:
1999-20:13
It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president’s authority to wage war without Congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent Presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the President greater power to wage war with Congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.
!CITE:
1999-20:14
It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution but more likely it’s the result of the growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.
!CITE:
1999-20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.
!CITE:
1999-20:16
As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.
!CITE:
1999-20:17
We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved.
!CITE:
1999-20:18
Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The President today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without Congressional approval. It shouldn’t be that way. It’s dangerous politically, military, morally, and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law.
!TITLE:
Everybody Supports the Troops
!DATE:
24 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee as well as our leadership for bringing a resolution to the floor that is one that I can support. It is supporting of the troops but it does not go that one step further to rubber-stamp a foreign policy that is very questionable, so I appreciate that very much.
!CITE:
1999-21:2
But in another sense, I think it is awful strange that every time we do find our troops in harm’s way that we need to come to the House floor to reassure ourselves that we support the troops. I have never been challenged, and I take controversial votes on occasion, and I have never seen another Member challenge anybody as being unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. So it sort of bewilders me a little bit that we always have to say, “We support the troops.” I think that should go without saying.
!CITE:
1999-21:3
Nevertheless, we do have this resolution on the floor, and I will support it. But I just wonder why that occurs, that we feel compelled to do so. I think sometimes it is because we have not met up to our responsibilities, because we have allowed our troops to be placed in harm’s way, and usually in an improper manner. We have not done this properly according to the Constitution. The President did not get permission from the House and the Senate. We may have a little bit of a guilt feeling about having these troops placed in harm’s way without the proper permission, and, therefore, we have to reassure ourselves that we are taking care of the troops.
!CITE:
1999-21:4
Now, if we really want to support our troops, I think we would defend the sovereignty of this country, we should provide for a strong national defense and we certainly should avoid putting our troops in harm’s way. The real question that comes up is by putting the troops in this region right now, we are invading the sovereignty of a nation which is very questionable. This is not done very often. Yet Serbia is a sovereign nation. They are involved in a civil war, and there are bad guys on both sides. For us here in the Congress to decide who the good guys and who the bad guys are is not possible, nor is it our job.
!TITLE:
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
!DATE:
24 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, U.S. military forces are now bombing a foreign nation halfway around the world. This cannot be a proud moment for America. The reason given for doing so is that Serbian leaders have not done what we have told them to do.
!CITE:
1999-22:2
Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war, with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia has not threatened us nor used any force against any American citizen.
!CITE:
1999-22:3
As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail.
!CITE:
1999-22:4
Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war.
!CITE:
1999-22:5
The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a non-binding resolution and had no effect of law. Even if it did, the resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement was signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia. Besides, the resolution was not the proper procedure for granting war powers to a president.
!CITE:
1999-22:6
The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort.
!CITE:
1999-22:7
Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.
!CITE:
1999-22:8
It has been argued we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans. Our presence will do the opposite, but it will certainly help the military-industrial complex. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a desired goal, has now ended; and we have provoked the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.
!CITE:
1999-22:9
U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO.
!CITE:
1999-22:10
Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders.
!CITE:
1999-22:11
Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.
!CITE:
1999-22:12
Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent’s child’s life who will be sacrificed, not their own.
!CITE:
1999-22:13
With new talk of reinstituting the military draft since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.
!TITLE:
Peace
!DATE:
25 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise and with gratitude to Edmund Burke and paraphrase words he first spoke 224 years ago this week. As it is presently true that to restore liberty and dignity to a nation so great and distracted as ours is indeed a significant undertaking. For, judging of what we are by what we ought to be, I have persuaded myself that this body might accept this reasonable proposition.
!CITE:
1999-23:2
The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war, not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all part of the earth; not peace to depend on juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of distant nations. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course and in it ordinary haunts.
!CITE:
1999-23:3
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other — and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.
!CITE:
1999-23:4
For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine than that it is the Income Tax which pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee, which provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our army and navy but also has infused them with a patriotism without which our army will become a base rubble and our navy nothing but rotten timber.
!CITE:
1999-23:5
All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from begin qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspiciate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is, peace and neutrality alone will makes ours the Republic that it can yet still be.
!TITLE:
Closer To Empire
!DATE:
25 March 1999
!CITE:
1999-24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to consider the effect of our current actions in Kosovo, but this time I do not wish to address the folly of war, for attempts to prevent war measures against that nation are now futile. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a long term concern, a problem larger even than war. I am referring to the folly of empire.
!CITE:
1999-24:2
Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq, and in Bosnia — when combined with America’s role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world, is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose.
!CITE:
1999-24:3
I remind those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.
!CITE:
1999-24:4
To pragmatists, agnostics and such, I point to the decline and fall which has historically attended every other empire. The Ottomans and Romans, the Spanish and the British, all who have tried empire have faltered, and at great costs to their own nations.
!CITE:
1999-24:5
Mr. Speaker, to liberals I would remind that these interventions, however well-intended they may be, all require the use of forces of occupation, and this is the key step toward colonialism, itself always leading to subjugation and to oppression.
!CITE:
1999-24:6
To conservatives, I want to recall the founding of our Republic, our nation’s breaking from the yoke of empire in order that we might realize the benefits of liberty and self-determination, and that we might obtain the blessings that flow naturally from limitations on centralized power. Empire reflecting the most perfect means yet devised to concentrate power in the fewest hands.
!CITE:
1999-24:7
Now, Mr. Speaker, our own nation faces a choice and we may well be at the very precipice. Indeed, to move even one step further down the road to empire may mean that there will be no turning back short of the eventual decline and fall. Will we act now to restore our Republic?
!CITE:
1999-24:8
It is oft repeated that we do not realize the import of our most critical actions at the time that we begin to undertake them. How true, Mr. Speaker, this statement is. Were Mr. Townshend, or the King in England the least contemplative of the true cost which would eventuate as a result of the tea tax or the stamp act?
!CITE:
1999-24:9
Now we must ask, is our nation on the verge of empire? Some will say no, because, they say, we do not seek to have direct control over the governments of foreign lands, but how close are we to doing just that? And is it so important whether the dictates of empire come from the head of our government or from the Secretary General of some multilateral entity which we direct?
!CITE:
1999-24:10
Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of governments they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference.
!CITE:
1999-24:11
And where now are we willing to commit troops and under what conditions? If we are to stop all violations of human rights, what will we do of Cuba, which recently announced new crackdowns?
!CITE:
1999-24:12
And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?
!CITE:
1999-24:13
Will the principle upon which we are now claiming to act lead us to impose our political solutions upon the nations that now contain Tibet, and Kurdistan, and should the sentiment rear, even Quebec and Chechnya?
!CITE:
1999-24:14
The most dangerous thing about where we are headed is our lack of historical memory and our disastrous inattention to the effect of the principles upon which we act, for ideas do indeed have consequences, Mr. Speaker, and they pick up a momentum that becomes all their own.
!CITE:
1999-24:15
I do believe that we are on the brink, Mr. Speaker, but it is not yet too late. Soon I fear the train, as it is said, will have left the station. We stand on the verge of crossing that line that so firmly distinguishes empire from republic. This occurs not so much by an action or series of actions but by the acceptance of an idea, the idea that we have a right, a duty, an obligation, or a national interest to perfect foreign nations even while we remain less than principled ourselves.
!CITE:
1999-24:16
When will we, as a people and as an institution, say “we choose to keep our republic, your designs for empire interest us not in the least.” I can only hope it will be soon, for it is my sincerest fear that failing to do so much longer will put us beyond this great divide.
!TITLE:
Crisis in Kosovo
!DATE:
14 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the crisis that is ongoing now in Yugoslavia. For a war to be moral, we must have a reason to go in. National defense is a moral justification. If we are attacked, it is a moral war. Getting involved in any other kind of war is not considered to be moral.
!CITE:
1999-25:2
A legal war in this country is one that is declared, declared by the Congress. Any other war is illegal. The war in Yugoslavia now pursued by our administration and with NATO is both immoral and illegal and it should not be pursued. We will be soon voting on an appropriation, probably next week. There may be a request for $5 billion to pursue the war in Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we should continue to finance a war that is both immoral and illegal.
!CITE:
1999-25:3
It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state.
!CITE:
1999-25:4
It is totally contradictory. There is a civil war, and it is horrible, going on in Yugoslavia today, but this is no justification for outsiders, and especially United States of America, to become involved without the proper proceedings.
!CITE:
1999-25:5
I believe that our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), deserves to be complemented because he is making a determined effort to put the burden on the Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. Since World War II we have fought numerous wars, and they have never been fought with a declaration of war, and it is precisely for that reason, because they have not been fought for truly national security reasons, that we have not won these wars. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth declaring, and it is worth winning.
!CITE:
1999-25:6
I am delighted that this effort is being made by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL) and others here in the Congress because for so long, for 50 years now, we have permitted our Presidents to casually and carelessly involve our troops overseas. So I see this trend as putting more pressure on the Congress to respond to their responsibilities. I think this is a very, very good move and going in the right direction.
!CITE:
1999-25:7
It has been asked why in the world might we be there if it is not a concern for the refugees, because obviously we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees in many, many places around the world. We do not go to Rwanda to rescue the refugees, we did not go into Yugoslavia to rescue the Serbian refugees when they were being routed from Bosnia and Croatia, but all of a sudden the refugees seem to have an importance.
!CITE:
1999-25:8
Most people know why we went to the Persian Gulf. It was not because we were attacked. It was because of a financial commercial interest: oil. But what is the interest in this area in Yugoslavia? I am not sure exactly what it is. There has been a lot of postulations about this, but I am not convinced that it is all of a sudden the concern for the refugees.
!CITE:
1999-25:9
Yesterday in the Washington Post an interesting article occurred on this subject, but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war.
!CITE:
1999-25:10
There is talk now of calling up all our Reserves or many of our Reserves at the same time there are hints now that there may be the institution of the draft. So this is a major problem that this country is facing, the world is facing, and up until now we, the Congress, have not spoken.
!CITE:
1999-25:11
On February 9 of this year I introduced a bill that would have prohibited this by prohibiting any funds being spent on a war in Yugoslavia. I say it is too bad we did not pass that legislation a long time ago.
!TITLE:
The Bombing in Serbia Must Stop
!DATE:
15 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the bombing in Serbia must stop immediately. Serbia has never aggressed against the United States. Serbia is involved in a bloody civil war of which we should have no part, and have not declared war, as the Constitution requires. That makes this war both immoral and illegal.
!CITE:
1999-26:2
Not only has the bombing done no good, it has made the situation much worse and the world more dangerous. Serb troops are not dying; American troops are not dying, but innocent civilians are being killed by the hundreds on both sides.
!CITE:
1999-26:3
There are just too many uncanny accidents. The refugee problem, which was minimal before the bombing, is now catastrophic as a result. Congress should not fund this war and if we do, we have become an accomplice and morally responsible for the killing and the spread of this conflict that will surely occur if this bombing is not stopped.
!TITLE:
Why Taxes Are High
!DATE:
15 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1999-27:2
I would like to start off by saying that I admire political courage. I have been fascinated by the Members from the other side of the aisle who have been willing, in the light of day and before the American people, to stand up and tell us that they do like it to be easy to raise taxes, and they object to making it more difficult to raise taxes. So I admire them for that.
!CITE:
1999-27:3
But we must ask, why are taxes high? Taxes are high because government is big. We are dealing with only one-half of the equation. As long as the American people want big government, as long as they want a welfare state, and as long as they believe we should police the world, taxes will remain high.
!CITE:
1999-27:4
This is a token effort to move in the right direction of eliminating taxes. Big government is financed in three different ways. First, we borrow money. Borrowing is legal under the Constitution, although that was debated at the Constitutional Convention, and the Jeffersonians lost. Someday we should deal with that. We should not be able to borrow to finance big government.
!CITE:
1999-27:5
Something that we do here in Washington which is also unconstitutional is to inflate the currency to pay for debt. Last year the Federal Reserve bought Treasury debt to the tune of $43 billion. This helps finance big government. This is illegal, unconstitutional, and is damaging to our economy.
!CITE:
1999-27:6
But we are dealing with taxes today. Taxes today are at the highest peacetime level ever, going over 21 percent of the GDP. The problem is that taxes are too high.
!CITE:
1999-27:7
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for bringing this measure to the floor. I would say this is a modest approach. Today we can raise taxes with a 50 percent vote. I and others would like to make it 100 percent. It would be great if we needed 100 percent of the people to vote to raise taxes. I see this as a modest compromise and one of moderation. So I would say that I strongly endorse this move to make it more difficult in a very modest way.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) a question.

I take it that the gentleman believes that government is too big and that is a function of both what it takes in and what goes out, what it spends out.

So would it be fair to say that the gentleman would support a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for expenditures, too?
!CITE:
1999-27:8
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that sounds like a pretty good idea.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
!DATE:
20 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
!CITE:
1999-28:2
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution—a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.
!CITE:
1999-28:3
Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people’s money. We should look for another way.
!CITE:
1999-28:4
It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money.
!TITLE:
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
!DATE:
21 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism celebrated NATO’s 50th anniversary with the Senate’s 1998 overwhelming approval for expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. This year’s official inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all NATO’s supporters proud, indeed. But in reality, NATO now is weaker and more chaotic than ever.
!CITE:
1999-29:2
In the effort to expand NATO and promote internationalism, we see in reaction the rise of ugly nationalism. The U.S. and NATO policy of threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo without true independence from Serbia, and protected by NATO’s forces for the foreseeable future, has been a recipe for disaster.
!CITE:
1999-29:3
This policy of nation-building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO charter.
!CITE:
1999-29:4
Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Working hard to justify NATO’s policy in this region has totally obscured any objective analysis of the turmoil now raging.
!CITE:
1999-29:5
Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes.
!CITE:
1999-29:6
Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were uprooted from Croatia and Bosnia with the encouragement of NATO intervention did great harm to the regional effort to reestablish more stable borders.
!CITE:
1999-29:7
The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes.
!CITE:
1999-29:8
Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory after suffering much themselves as well as face war crimes trials run by the West makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results would be.
!CITE:
1999-29:9
The argument that, because of humanitarian concerns for the refugees, we were forced to act is not plausible. Our efforts dramatically increased the refugee problem. Milosevic, as he felt cornered by the Western threats, reacted the only way he could to protect what he considered Serbia, a position he defends with international law while being supported by unified Serb people.
!CITE:
1999-29:10
If it is the suffering and the refugees that truly motivate our actions, there is no answer to the perplexing question of why no action was taken to help the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timore, Tibet, Chechnya, Kurdish, Turkey, and for the Palestinians in Israel. This is not a reason; it is an excuse.
!CITE:
1999-29:11
Instead, we give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities.
!CITE:
1999-29:12
How many refugees, how many children’s death has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a defenseless poverty-ridden Iraq. Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war.
!CITE:
1999-29:13
This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and promoted illegally by our President without congressional authority, as is required by the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-29:14
The United States Government has in the past referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders as thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug dealers. This current fight was initiated by Kosovo’s desire for independence from Serbia.
!CITE:
1999-29:15
The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations.
!CITE:
1999-29:16
But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young Americans to fight for Kosovo’s independence. It is wrong legally and morally; and besides, the KLA is not likely to institute a model nation respecting civil liberties of all its citizens.
!CITE:
1999-29:17
The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the interventionists, whose goal is one world government, so determined to defend a questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and independent Tibet, and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence.
!CITE:
1999-29:18
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders’ belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II and in a more aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.
!CITE:
1999-29:19
Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
!CITE:
1999-29:20
Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides.
!CITE:
1999-29:21
The United States, along with the United Nations, in 1992 supported an arms embargo against Kosovo essentially making it impossible for the Kosovars to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian Muslims is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil countries unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from the arms embargo.
!CITE:
1999-29:22
This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed to fail and has only led to more instability and the spreading of the war in the region.
!CITE:
1999-29:23
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-29:24
Not much long-term good can come of a foreign policy designed to meddle and manipulate in places where we have no business or authority. It cannot help the cause of peace.
!CITE:
1999-29:25
Unfortunately, our policies usually backfire and do more harm than good. When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world.
!CITE:
1999-29:26
War has been used throughout history to enhance the state against the people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce the people into this careless giving up of their liberties.
!CITE:
1999-29:27
This has always been true with military wars, but the same can be said of the war mentality associated with the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against illiteracy, or any other war proposed by some social do-gooder or intentional mischief maker.
!CITE:
1999-29:28
But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics.
!CITE:
1999-29:29
Even the war against national disasters led by FEMA, usurps local authority while imposing restraints on movement and controlling recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private insurance, and voluntary groups.
!CITE:
1999-29:30
Our overseas efforts to police the world implies that with or without success, resulting injuries and damage imposed by us and others will be rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of more foreign aid, as we always do. Nation building and international social work has replaced national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.
!CITE:
1999-29:31
What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future.
!CITE:
1999-29:32
When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
!CITE:
1999-29:33
Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgment, and the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified.
!CITE:
1999-29:34
United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A Civil War that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO’s interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed.
!CITE:
1999-29:35
The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO.
!CITE:
1999-29:36
Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the evil Serbs fit the bill. It was convenient to ignore the evil Croates and the Kosovars, and it certainly was easy to forget the United Nations’, NATO’s, and the United States’ policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia.
!CITE:
1999-29:37
It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake and how could Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to disintegrate.
!CITE:
1999-29:38
Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.
!CITE:
1999-29:39
Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.
!CITE:
1999-29:40
The excuse that we are the only superpower is hardly a moral reason to justify bombing nations that are seen as uncooperative. Military strength gives neither a right to bully nor a monopoly on wisdom. This strength too often, when held by large political entities, is used criminally to serve the powerful special interests.
!CITE:
1999-29:41
The Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia obviously are much more economically intriguing than Rwanda and Sudan. There are clearly no business benefits for taking on the Chinese over its policy toward Tibet. Quite the contrary, we do business with China and subsidize her to boot.
!CITE:
1999-29:42
In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support behind NATO, and the budgets of 19 Western countries, NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste and political infighting will surely result.
!CITE:
1999-29:43
There is no natural tendency for big government to enjoy stability without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system. But eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO’s well-deserved demise. NATO, especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, will find using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail.
!CITE:
1999-29:44
It has been said that, in numbers, there is strength. But in politics, it can also be said that, in numbers, there is confusion as differences become magnified.
!CITE:
1999-29:45
Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-member NATO group. When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace loving, and freedom oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO/U.N. system.
!CITE:
1999-29:46
The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-communist commitment.
!CITE:
1999-29:47
Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so proned to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting, even Communists. In recent months four separate sovereign nations were bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record. Bombing Belgrade on Easter has to tell us something about an administration that is still strangely seen by some as not having the determination to fight a real war. There is a big difference between being anti-war when one’s life is at risk as compared to when it is someone else’s. That may tell us something about character, but there is more to it than that.
!CITE:
1999-29:48
Many who were opposed to the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars are now strongly supporting this so-called just and humanitarian war to punish those who are said to be totally responsible for the Yugoslavian refugee problem. The fact that Serbia is not Communist in the sense of North Vietnam may play a part for some in making the decision to support this war but not the war in Vietnam. But the Persian Gulf War was not at all about communism, it was about oil.
!CITE:
1999-29:49
Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism, supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part the opposition came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party, while today, supporting one’s own party’s position to bomb the Serbs becomes politically correct.
!CITE:
1999-29:50
The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.
!CITE:
1999-29:51
The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politician’s good judgment. And when it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets about the restraints when it is not convenient.
!CITE:
1999-29:52
The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent. Likewise, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.
!CITE:
1999-29:53
Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream. It allows arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and property.
!CITE:
1999-29:54
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.
!CITE:
1999-29:55
What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general and NATO and the United Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same results.
!CITE:
1999-29:56
NATO’s days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while, but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with a 1-year’s notice. That we ought to do, but we will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come before it is recognized that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments, not by a one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force determined by politically correct reasons and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world.
!CITE:
1999-29:57
Our more immediate problem is the financing of the ongoing war in Yugoslavia. On February 9 of this year I introduced legislation to deny funds to the President to wage war in Yugoslavia. The Congress chose to ignore this suggestion and missed an opportunity to prevent the fiasco now ongoing in Yugoslavia.
!CITE:
1999-29:58
The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the President’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the President to cease and desist.
!CITE:
1999-29:59
Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and legally culpable.
!CITE:
1999-29:60
Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for 9 years with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for 3 years, with no end in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end.
!CITE:
1999-29:61
Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship whenever possible. And when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO’s aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the better. It is the right thing to do.
!TITLE:
Round Top, TX Dedicates A New Post Office
!DATE:
22 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, dedication ceremonies will soon be held in Texas to mark the completion of a new postal facility in Round Top, TX. This is the first new post office in this city since the 1968 dedication of the old one.
!CITE:
1999-30:2
The route this new post office took from blue print to completion expresses the basis of being a Texan and an American. The U.S. Postal Service approached Round Top with a pre-designed post office building that had apparently been designed in Washington without the input of the people of Round Top. In true Texas fashion the people of this city stood up to say this new building would be in their town for their use and therefore insisted that it reflect the city in which it would be built. As a result, they now have a beautiful new building that reflects their history as a community and as Texans. Since Round Top has had a post office since the days of the Republic of Texas, is only fitting that this new building points to the proud heritage of our great state.
!CITE:
1999-30:3
Our Founding Fathers intended for decisions to be made as close to the people as possible. By rejecting plans that had no connection to their city, the people of Round Top continue to live up to this great tradition.
!CITE:
1999-30:4
Mr. Speaker, Postmaster Carol Oritz and her community are deservingly proud of their new post office and the history behind it. As our great state continues to grow and our major cities get even larger, we would be wise to remember the people of Round Top and other such communities.
!CITE:
1999-30:5
It is fitting that the new post office in the Texas town of Round Top today flies an American flag that very recently flew over our nation’s capitol building.
!TITLE:
Environmental Regulatory Issues
!DATE:
22 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the policy debate on critical environmental regulatory issues by John McClaughry in an article he authored in yesterday’s Washington Times. Mr. McClaughry succinctly highlights the danger which occurs when, as happened in the United States in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, property rights are ignored in the name of “progress.”
!CITE:
1999-31:2
Mr. McClaughry, president of Vermont’s Ethan Allen Institute, correctly explains that technological innovation is stunted when the legal system allows polluters to externalize their costs without allowing legal recourse by those whose property is polluted.
!CITE:
1999-31:3
I commend the research of Mr. McClaughry and thank him for his important contribution to the policy debate regarding environmental regulation and recommend a careful reading of his article by everyone genuinely interested in both the proper moral and economic resolution of these issues.
!CITE:
1999-31:4
CELEBRATING THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH
Tomorrow, many Americans will celebrate the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. The event was created in 1970 to call attention to humankind’s despoliation of our planet. It’s a good time to see what 30 years of Earth Day enthusiasm has given us.
!CITE:
1999-31:5
The environmental awareness stimulated by the first Earth Day has had many beneficial results. Thanks to citizen awareness and ensuing state and national legislation, today the air is much cleaner, the water far purer, and risk from toxic and hazardous wastes sharply reduced. Polluters have been made to pay for disposal costs previously imposed on the public. Private groups like the Nature Conservancy have purchased and conserved millions of acres of land and natural resources.
!CITE:
1999-31:6
But — and it always seems there is a but — like every promising new movement, the people who became leaders of the environmental movement stimulated by Earth Day soon found they could increase their political power (and staff salaries) by constantly demanding more command and control regulation. That heavyhanded government response has increasingly surpassed the boundaries of science and reason and severely strained the good will of millions of Americans who had eagerly responded to the initial call to clean up and protect our planet.
!CITE:
1999-31:7
Here are just some of the “achievements” of an environmental movement that has flourished by promoting fantastic enviro-scares, sending out millions of pieces of semihysterical direct mail fundraising letters, peddling junk science, and making ever-more-collusive legal deals.
!CITE:
1999-31:8
A failed Endangered Species Act which, by substituting “ecosystem” control for species protection incentives, has caused thousands of landowners to drive off or exterminate the very species that were supposed to be protected.
!CITE:
1999-31:9
A wetlands protection program that has gone from controlling real wetlands to regulating buffer zones around tiny “vernal pools” of spring snow melt, and even lands that have no water on them at all, but feature “hydric soils.”
!CITE:
1999-31:10
An air quality program that denies permits to dry cleaning plants unless they can prove that their emissions will not cause 300,001 instead of the normal 300,000 cancer deaths among 1 million people who will live for 70 consecutive years next door to the plant.
!CITE:
1999-31:11
A “superfund” bill which has sucked billions of dollars out of taxpayers to pay lawyers to pursue “potentially responsible parties” instead of actually cleaning up toxic waste sites.
!CITE:
1999-31:12
An ozone depletion scare whose purported effect — increasing incidence of dangerous ultraviolet B at ground level — turned out to be unsupportable by evidence.
!CITE:
1999-31:13
A global warming hysteria, based on speculative computer models instead of actual temperature data, to justify a treaty to impose federal and international taxes, rationing and prohibitions on all U.S. carbon-based energy sources.
!CITE:
1999-31:14
Ludicrous requirements imposed on the nuclear energy industry, such as requiring massive concrete vaults for the storage of old coveralls and air filters whose radioactivity level a few feet from the container is less than the background radiation produced by ordinary Vermont granite.
!CITE:
1999-31:15
Enforcing many of these unsupportable policies is a federal and state bureaucracy eager to deny defendants any semblance of fair play, secure sweetheart consent agreements, and measure their success by fines and jail time imposed — for example, on the Pennsylvania landowner who removed car bodies and old tires from a seasonal stream bed on his land without a federal permit (fined $300,000).
!CITE:
1999-31:16
As Roger Marzulla, a former assistant U.S. attorney general for land and resources, recently put it, “Like the enchanted broomsticks in the story of ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,’ the environmental enforcement program has gotten completely out of control.”
!CITE:
1999-31:17
Fortunately, a common-sense, fair play, rights-respecting alternative environmental movement has begun to appear. On Earth Day 1999, its member groups — as many as a hundred state and national organizations — are celebrating “Resourceful Earth Day.” Their alternative is based on a remark made by Henry David Thoreau, who said, “I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.”
!CITE:
1999-31:18
The astonishing growth of science and technology in the past 30 years has proven over and over again that human ingenuity can and will rise to overcome every environmental challenge. Today’s energy sources are far cleaner and more efficient than those of 1970, and even more pollution-free new energy devices are emerging from laboratories. New cars today, fueled with improved gasoline, produce 2 percent of the pollution of 1970 cars. Cost-effective resource recovery of everything from aluminum to methane, has made giant strides. Microsensors, global positioning satellites, and tiny computers allow farmers to dispense just the right concentration of fertilizer on every square yard of a field.
!CITE:
1999-31:19
The friends of the “Resourceful Earth” believe in progress, not just to make and consume more stuff, but to protect our Earth as well. The tide is with them, and as their creative optimism prevails the better off Mother Earth — and its people — will be.
!TITLE:
On Regulating Satellite TV
!DATE:
27 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an unfortunate and false choice between two evils. The false choice is whether the government should ban voluntary exchange or regulate it — as though these were the only two options. More specifically, today’s choice is whether government should continue to maintain its ban on satellite provision of network programming to television consumers or replace that ban by expanding an anti-market, anti-consumer regulatory regime to the entire satellite television industry.
!CITE:
1999-32:2
H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of contract principles, imposes anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to “re-map the country” and further empowers the National Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to “study the impact” of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets.
!CITE:
1999-32:3
This bill’s title includes the word “competition” but ignores the market processes’ inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price setter — determining prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to satellite programing service providers under the “compulsory license.”
!CITE:
1999-32:4
Unfortunately, this bill expands the government’s role to set the so-called just price for satellite programming. This, of course, is inherently impossible outside the market process of voluntary exchange and has, not surprisingly, resulted instead in “competition” among service providers for government favor rather than consumer-benefiting competition inherent to the genuine market.
!CITE:
1999-32:5
While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can only be achieved within the market process itself.
!CITE:
1999-32:6
I introduced what I believe is the most pro-consumer, competition-friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere with consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations on satellite service providers to “keep the playing field level,” my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must-carry from the already over-regulated cable industry.
!CITE:
1999-32:7
Genuine competition is a market process and, in a world of scarce resources, it alone best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate that this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate that our only choice with H.R. 1554 is to trade one form of government intervention for another — “ban voluntarily exchange or bureaucratically regulate it?” Unfortunate, indeed.
!TITLE:
On Debating War Resolution
!DATE:
28 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose the rule, and I do this hesitantly, because it is difficult to write fair rules and I generally support the rules. But today I have to oppose this rule, mainly because we are going to be debating war, a declaration of war, and a full hour is not adequate to debate an issue of that magnitude. I know there was an attempt to provide for a lot of debate today, but, for instance, on the one issue of declaration of war, only one hour was given; that is just not enough.
!CITE:
1999-33:2
The other reason is that it does preclude a House Resolution coming up again under an expedited procedure. This is not right. This is undermining the whole purpose of the War Power Resolution of 1973, and we should not be doing this.
!CITE:
1999-33:3
This is taking more authority away from the Congress and giving more authority to the President and to the administration and for us not to have a say. The whole issue of war should be decided here in this Congress, and we are here today because we have been negligent on assuming our responsibilities.
!CITE:
1999-33:4
I saw this coming, and on February 9 of this year, I introduced a bill that would have prevented this whole problem by making certain that our President could not spend one penny on waging war in Kosovo. That is what we should have done. We have not, and now we are in this mess.
!CITE:
1999-33:5
But we do not need to be once again taking more responsibility from the Congress and giving it to the President. We have a policy problem, we do not have a resolution problem. We have a foreign policy that endorses intervention any time, anyplace, assuming that our Presidents know when to insert troops around the world. That is our basic problem. Until we in the Congress take it upon ourselves to assume our responsibility with the issue of war, this problem will continue.
!CITE:
1999-33:6
So I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL) for bringing these resolutions to the floor, but, unfortunately, I cannot support this rule today as written.
!TITLE:
Whether, And How, To Go To War
!DATE:
28 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there have clearly been set two goals among a group of us. We have been striving to make sure this Congress follows procedure, that is, if we go to war, that we do it properly. It is pretty difficult to achieve this, especially when a president is willing to go to war and then we have to do this as a second thought. I am pleased that, at least today, we are trying to catch up on this. The second issue is whether it is wise to go to war.
!CITE:
1999-34:2
Certainly, under these circumstances, I think it is very unwise for the American people to go to war at this time. The Serbs have done nothing to us, and we should not be over there perpetuating a war.
!CITE:
1999-34:3
Our problem has been that we are trying to accommodate at least a half century of a policy which is interventionism at will by our presidents. We have become the policemen of the world. As long as we endorse that policy, we will have a difficulty with the subject we are dealing with today.
!CITE:
1999-34:4
Today we are trying to deal legally with a half a war. A half a war is something like a touch of pregnancy. You can’t have a half a war. If we do not declare war and if we do not fight a war because it is in our national interest and for national security reasons, we’ll inevitably will not fight to win the war. That has always been our problem, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf war.
!CITE:
1999-34:5
To me, it is so important that you fight war for national security reasons only, you declare a war and you fight to win the war. We are not about to do that today. We are not going to declare war against Serbia. Serbia has done nothing to America. They have been close allies of ours, especially in World War II. We are not going to do that. Are we going to demand the troops be removed? Probably not.
!CITE:
1999-34:6
So what are we going to do? We are going to perpetuate this confusion. But what we should do is vote down a declaration of war, vote to get the troops out of Yugoslavia, and vote to stop the bombing. The sooner we do that, the better. That is in America’s interests.
!TITLE:
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
!DATE:
28 April 1999
!CITE:
1999-35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several Members already about being unhappy with the legislative process today. The votes did not go exactly the way I wanted, but I am not all that unhappy with what happened because there was a serious effort for this House to restore some of the responsibility that they have allowed to gravitate to the administration and to our Presidents over the many years.
!CITE:
1999-35:2
Today’s legislative process was chaotic, but I think it was chaotic for a precise reason. We are trying to rectify something that has been going on for more than 50 years, and it is not just this President. It is every President that we have had since World War II. We have in the Congress permitted our Presidents too much leeway in waging war.
!CITE:
1999-35:3
This was an effort today to restore that responsibility to the House. It was done sloppily, but considering the alternative of doing nothing, this was much better.
!CITE:
1999-35:4
So I am very pleased with what happened today. I am disappointed that there was such strong feelings about the outcome. But I suspect they were not unhappy with the process as much as they were unhappy with not winning the votes.
!CITE:
1999-35:5
But nevertheless the votes were very important today. One of the most significant, if not the most significant: we on this House floor today voted up and down on a war resolution. This is not done very often and under the circumstances that exist today, probably the first time.
!CITE:
1999-35:6
But that was an easy vote. The House overwhelmingly voted not to go to war. This makes a lot of sense. This is a very good vote. Why should we go to war against a country that has not aggressed against us?
!CITE:
1999-35:7
So this was normal and natural and a very good vote. The problem comes with the other votes because they do not follow a consistent pattern.
!CITE:
1999-35:8
I think there are too many Members in this House who have enjoyed the fact that they have delivered the responsibility to the President. They do not want war, but they want war. They do not want a legal war, they want an illegal war. They do not want a war to win, they want a war that is a half of a war. They want the President to do the dirty work, but they do not want the Congress to stand up and decide one way or the other.
!CITE:
1999-35:9
Today we saw evidence that the Congress was willing to stand up to some degree and vote on this and take some responsibility. For this reason I am pleased with what happened. So voting against the war that has no significant national security interest makes a lot of sense to me.
!CITE:
1999-35:10
Another vote, the vote to withhold ground troops unless Congress authorizes the funding for this; this is not micromanaging anything. This is just the Congress standing up and accepting their responsibilities. So this in many ways was very good. This means that the people in this country, as they send their messages to the Members of Congress, are saying that this war does not make a whole lot of sense. If the people of this country were frightened, if they felt like they were being attacked, if they felt like their liberties were threatened, believe me the vote would have been a lot different.
!CITE:
1999-35:11
But I am very pleased that this House stood up and said:
!CITE:
1999-35:12
Mr. President, you have overstepped your bounds already. Slow up. Do not get this notion that you should send in ground troops. It makes no sense to this House.
!CITE:
1999-35:13
Now the interesting thing is that was a resolution, it was a House Resolution, that probably really does not have much effect other than a public relation effect because it would have to be passed by the Senate, it would be vetoed by the President, we would have to override his veto. So, in the practical legislative sense it does not mean a whole lot, but it means something in the fact that we brought it to the floor and we were required to vote on it.
!CITE:
1999-35:14
Another resolution that was defeated unfortunately, and it was defeated by a two-to-one margin; this would have said that the President would have to cease, we should have told him to cease, because we have not given him the right to wage war. As a matter of fact, even today we said there will be no war, there will be no declaration of war, so we should consistently follow up and say what we should do is withdraw and not fight a war.
!CITE:
1999-35:15
Likewise, when we come to the endorsement of the military bombing, fortunately it went down narrowly. But it in itself, too, does not have any legal effect. That is a House Concurrent Resolution that has no effect of law other than the public relations effect of what the Congress is saying.
!CITE:
1999-35:16
But I think it is a powerful message that the American people have spoke through this House of Representatives today to not rubber stamp an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The only moral war is a war that is fought in self-defense. Some claim that this is a moral war because there are people who have been injured. But that is not enough justification. The moral and constitutional war has to be fought in self-defense.
!TITLE:
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
!DATE:
4 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Con. Res. 84, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs should be this Congress’ top priority.
!CITE:
1999-36:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level!
!CITE:
1999-36:3
This bill further assures that control over the education dollar will remain centered in Washington by calling for Congress to “meet the commitment to fund existing Federal education programs.” Thus, this bill not only calls on Congress to increase funding for IDEA, it also calls on Congress to not cut funds for any program favored by Congress. The practical effect of this bill is to place yet another obstacle in the road of fulfilling Congress’ constitutional mandate to put control of education back into the hands of the people.
!CITE:
1999-36:4
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K–12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child’s education.
!CITE:
1999-36:5
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children’s special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child’s parent.
!CITE:
1999-36:6
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America’s schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 84 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.
!TITLE:
Pell Grants
!DATE:
4 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose H. Con. Res. 88, which expresses the sense of the Congress that funding for the Pell Grant Program should be increased by $400 per grant and calls on Congress ton increase funding for other existing education programs prior to authorizing or appropriating funds for new programs. While I certainly do oppose creating any new federal education programs, I also oppose increasing funds for any programs, regardless of whether or not the spending is within the constraints of the so-called balanced budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, instead of increasing unconstitutional federal spending, Congress should empower the American people to devote more of their own resources to higher education by cutting their taxes. Cutting taxes, not increasing federal spending, should be Congress’ highest priority.
!CITE:
1999-37:2
By taxing all Americans in order to provide limited aid to a few, federal higher education programs provide the federal government with considerable power to allocate access to higher education. Government aid also destroys any incentives for recipients of the aid to consider price when choosing a college. The result is a destruction of the price control mechanism inherent in the market, leading to ever-rising tuition. This makes higher education less affordable for millions of middle-class Americans who are ineligible for Pell Grants!
!CITE:
1999-37:3
Federal funding of higher education also leads to federal control of many aspects of higher education. Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot resist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions beholden to taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by examining today’s higher educational system. College and universities are so fearful of losing federal aid they allow their policies on everything from composition of the student body to campus crime to be dictated by the Federal Government. Clearly, federal funding is being abused as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.
!CITE:
1999-37:4
Instead of increasing federal expenditures, Mr. Speaker, this Congress should respond to the American people’s demand for increased support of higher education by working to pass bills giving Americans tax relief. For example, Congress should pass H.R. 1188, a bill I am cosponsoring which provides a tax deduction of up to $20,000 for the payment of college tuition. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to enhance the tax benefit for education savings accounts and pre-paid tuition plans to make it easier for parents to save for their children’s education. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their own tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.
!CITE:
1999-37:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 88 and any other attempt to increase spending on federal programs. Instead, my colleagues should join me in working to put the American people in control of higher education by cutting taxes and thus allowing them to use more of their resources for higher education.
!TITLE:
Honoring The Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band
!DATE:
4 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band of Austin, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 Sudley “Flag of Honor” award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award.
!CITE:
1999-38:2
The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award.
!CITE:
1999-38:3
Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot “Flag of Honor” which becomes the property of the band, The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma.
!CITE:
1999-38:4
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.
!TITLE:
We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing
!DATE:
5 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how many innocent civilians must die before we stop bombing Serbia? We rightfully cherish the lives of our three servicemen and rejoice in their return, but how many Serbs will never rejoice because of all the death and destruction we have rained down upon them by casually dismissing as necessary mistakes of war a war that is not real to us yet only too real to those who are needlessly killed.
!CITE:
1999-39:2
Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-conceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse.
!CITE:
1999-39:3
The goal of peace and harmony can never be achieved by bombs and intimidation. That goal can only be achieved by honest friendship and trade when permissible and neutrality when armed conflict prevents it. We must not fund this senseless bombing.
!TITLE:
Kosovo War Is Illegal
!DATE:
5 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-40:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO’s war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO’s bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia.
!CITE:
1999-40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-40:3
The humanitarian excuse for the war is suspect. Economic interests are involved, as they so often are in most armed conflicts. NATO’s vaguely stated goals have not been achieved. For the most part, the opposite has. Let me give my colleagues a few examples.
!CITE:
1999-40:4
Number one. Milosevic is now more powerful than ever; the Serb’s more unified.
!CITE:
1999-40:5
Number two. Russia is now alienated from the west. Their hold on a nuclear arsenal is ignored. Along with Russia’s economic desperation and political instability, NATO is pushing Russia into a new alliance against the west.
!CITE:
1999-40:6
Number three. Innocent Serbs and Albanian citizens are routinely being killed by our bombs.
!CITE:
1999-40:7
Number four. Civilian targets are deliberately hit, including water, power and sewer plants, fuel storage and TV stations.
!CITE:
1999-40:8
Number five. An economic embargo is now being instituted to starve children and prevent medications from reaching the sick, just as we have been doing for a decade against Iraq.
!CITE:
1999-40:9
Number six. This war institutionalizes foreign control over our troops. Tony Blair now tells Bill Clinton how to fight a NATO war, while the U.S. taxpayers pay for it.
!CITE:
1999-40:10
Number seven. Greater instability in the region has resulted.
!CITE:
1999-40:11
Number eight. We are once again supporting Osama bin Laden and his friends in the KLA.
!CITE:
1999-40:12
Number nine. We have bombed Bulgaria. By mistake, of course. Sorry.
!CITE:
1999-40:13
Number ten. Our weapons are being depleted, our troops spread too thin, resulting in further undermining of our national defense.
!CITE:
1999-40:14
Number eleven. Billions of dollars are thrown down a rat hole and Congress is about to vote for more.
!CITE:
1999-40:15
Number twelve. The massive refugee problem, which is essentially a result of NATO’s bombing, continues.
!CITE:
1999-40:16
Up until now, general defense funds have been spent to wage this war without permission. The President wants to catch up and is asking for $6 billion, but Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to give him $13 billion for a war Congress rejects. Once we directly fund the war we will be partners in this mis-adventure. The votes last week were symbolic. They had no effect of law, but appropriations do.
!CITE:
1999-40:17
Saying the new appropriations will be used to beef up a neglected defense does not make it so. Defense funds are fungible. The President has proven this by waging a war for a month without any authorization or appropriation. Congress will no more control the next $13 billion than the money the President has already spent on the war.
!CITE:
1999-40:18
Appropriating funds to fight a war, even without a declaration, provides a much more powerful legal and political endorsement of the war than the public statements made against it by non-binding resolutions passed by the House last week. Declaring war and funding war are two powerful tools of the Congress to restrain a president from waging an unwise and illegal war. If the President pursues an undeclared war and we fund it, we become partners, no matter what justification is given for the spending.
!CITE:
1999-40:19
Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war.
!TITLE:
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
!DATE:
5 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to forbid the use of federal funds to develop or implement a national system of teacher certification or a national teacher test. My bill also forbids the Department of Education from denying funds to any state or local education agency because that state or local educational agency has refused to adopt a federally-approved method of teacher certification or testing. This legislation in no way interferes with a state’s ability to use federal funds to support their chosen method of teacher certification or testing.
!CITE:
1999-41:2
Having failed to implement a national curriculum through the front door with national student testing (thanks to the efforts of members of the Education Committee under the leadership of Chairman GOODLING), the administration is now trying to implement a national curriculum through the backdoor with national teacher testing and certification. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification with the same vigor with which you opposed national student testing.
!CITE:
1999-41:3
Many educators are already voicing opposition to national teacher cerification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing; I have attached a copy of this resolution for insertion into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.
!CITE:
1999-41:4
Legislation has already been introduced in the Texas State Legislature prohibiting the use of any national certification or national examination to determine if someone is qualified to teach in Texas. While I applaud this legislation, I wonder if Texas would change its’ policies if the Department of Education threatened to deny Texas federal funds if Texas failed to adopt the Department’s chosen method of teacher certification and testing. It is up to Congress to see that the Department of Education does not bully the states into adopting the method of teacher certification and testing favored by DC-based bureaucrats.
!CITE:
1999-41:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America’s teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing.
!CITE:
1999-41:6
COALITION OF INDEPENDENT EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS — STATEMENT ON NATIONAL TEACHER LICENSURE, FEBRUARY 26, 1999

The licensure of teachers should remain the responsibility of each state’s Board of Education and any attempt to authorize the federal government to govern this process should be opposed.
!CITE:
1999-41:7
Secretary of Education Richard Riley’s proposal (February 16, 1999) to empower a teacher panel to grant licenses for teaching would remove the separate state’s authority to protect the welfare of the general public.
!CITE:
1999-41:8
Teaching is a public enterprise and not a private profession.
!CITE:
1999-41:9
Such high stakes licensure decisions must be controlled by a body that is responsible to the public and has accountability for the quality of the decision.
!CITE:
1999-41:10
The current education reform movement has compelled states’ Boards of Education to revamp and improve teacher licensure programs. This right should be left to the states to best determine how they license state teachers.
!CITE:
1999-41:11
Congress should oppose any movement toward federalizing educator licensure, teacher appraisal, and employment contracts.
!CITE:
1999-41:12
The undersigned representatives of the Coalition of Independent Education Associations strongly urge our members of the Congress and the Senate to vigorously defend the rights of states to control their educational destiny.
!CITE:
1999-41:13
Arizona Professional Educators, Association of American Educators, Association of Professional Educators of Louisiana, Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators, Association of Texas Professional Educators, Kentucky Association of Professional Educators, Keystone Teachers Association, West Virginia Professional Educators, Mississippi Professional Educators, National Association of Professional Educators, Palmetto State Teachers Association, Professional Educators Network of Florida, Professional Educators of Iowa, Professional Educators of North Carolina, Professional Educators of Tennessee.
!TITLE:
More Money For War Not The Answer
!DATE:
6 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
!CITE:
1999-42:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so much money on a war that we have not declared.
!CITE:
1999-42:3
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the funding.
!CITE:
1999-42:4
Mr. Speaker, there is a fallacy, that floats around this House that says that if we increase the funding for the military, we will have greater defense. That reminds me of the accusation from the right that always challenges the left that says, if there is a social problem, all you want ever to do is throw more money at it. The worse the problem gets, the more money they want to spend on the social problem.
!CITE:
1999-42:5
It seems like the worse our defense gets and the more we get into quagmires around the world and the more we accept the policy of policing the world, all we seem to do is come back and say, well, if we just put more money in it, everything is going to be okay.
!CITE:
1999-42:6
But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war.
!CITE:
1999-42:7
Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong, it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted. Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in this ill-advised war.
!TITLE:
Supporting Istook Amendment
!DATE:
6 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-43:1
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.)
!CITE:
1999-43:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but last week’s vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there.
!CITE:
1999-43:3
This one may well go someplace and have an effect. So this is a much more important vote that we had last week. It is very important that we vote the same way as we did last week.
!CITE:
1999-43:4
I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.
!CITE:
1999-43:5
I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers.
!CITE:
1999-43:6
But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds.
!CITE:
1999-43:7
It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President “thou shalt not use these funds for the ground war,” well, he has not had the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now?
!CITE:
1999-43:8
Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do what they darn well please.
!CITE:
1999-43:9
This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it to remain in the hands of the President.
!CITE:
1999-43:10
This is very, very good. I have come to the House floor on numerous occasions since February, taking this position that we should not be involved. As a matter of fact, we had a couple dozen, maybe three dozen Members in this Congress who signed on a bill in February, a month or so before we even saw the bombs dropping in Yugoslavia, that would have prevented this whole mess if we would have stood up and assumed our responsibilities.
!CITE:
1999-43:11
It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? Others say, well, we must move in because Milosevic is so strong. Prior to the bombing, Milosevic was weak.
!CITE:
1999-43:12
Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get? Osama Bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with it.
!CITE:
1999-43:13
So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I mean, the whole thing is absurd.
!CITE:
1999-43:14
There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops.
!CITE:
1999-43:15
They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks us for $6 billion and then, in Congress’s infinite wisdom, we give him $13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war.
!CITE:
1999-43:16
This appropriation should be defeated.
!TITLE:
Tribute To Teachers
!DATE:
6 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Teacher Appreciation week by expressing my appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers and to ask my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. Yesterday I introduced legislation to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession.
!CITE:
1999-44:2
I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 937) which provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. The Teacher Tax Cut Act thus increases teachers’ salaries without raising federal expenditures. It lets America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.
!CITE:
1999-44:3
Mr. Speaker, these two bills send a strong signal to America’s teachers that we in Congress are determined to encourage good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession and that we want teachers to be treated as professionals, not as Education Department functionaries. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for national teacher testing and to give America’s teachers a $1,000 tax credit.
!TITLE:
Honoring Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band
!DATE:
6 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays School Rebel Band of Buda, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 “Sudler Flag of Honor” award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor award. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award.
!CITE:
1999-45:2
The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award.
!CITE:
1999-45:3
Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot “Flag of Honor” which becomes the property of the band. The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma.
!CITE:
1999-45:4
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.
!TITLE:
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
!DATE:
13 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called “pragmatic interventionists” has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government’s interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I’ve mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called “war to end all wars.”
!CITE:
1999-46:2
Today I do not wish to investigate yet again the details of this history but rather to examine, at a deeper level, why this sort of policy is doomed to fail.
!CITE:
1999-46:3
The base reason is that pragmatism is illogical and interventionism does not work. The notion that we can have successes without regard to the ends to be sought is absurd.
!CITE:
1999-46:4
It should be obvious to practical people that you cannot have “progress,” for example, without progressing toward some end. Equally as apparent ought to be the fact that human effectiveness cannot occur without considering the ends of human beings. Peace, freedom and virtue are ends toward which we ought to progress, but all reference to ends is rejected by the so-called pragmatists.
!CITE:
1999-46:5
Because of this lack of clarity of purpose we come to accept an equally unclear contortion of our language. Our military is “too thin,” it has been “hollowed out” and it is “unprepared.” But for what are we unprepared? And what policy is our army “too hollow” to carry out?
!CITE:
1999-46:6
If we remain unprepared to conduct total warfare across the globe, we should be thankful of this fact. If we are unprepared to police the world or to project power into every civil war, or “to win two different regional conflicts,” this is good.
!CITE:
1999-46:7
We are distracted by these dilemmas which result from unclear thought and unclear language. We convince ourselves that we need to be effective without having a goal in mind. Certainly we have no just end in mind because our pragmatic interventionists deny that ends exist.
!CITE:
1999-46:8
“Preparedness” is a word that has been thrown around a lot recently, but it begs the question “prepared for what?” No nation attacked ours, no nation has threatened ours, no sane leader would do so as it would be the death warrant of his own nation, his own people, and likely his own self. We are prepared to repel an attack and meet force with force but not necessarily to protect our nation and the populace. We are still vulnerable to a missile attack and have done little to protect against such a possibility.
!CITE:
1999-46:9
Thus or contortions and distortions that have led to dilemmas in our thoughts and dilemmas in our policy have led also to real paradoxes. Because our policy of globaloney is so bad, so unprincipled and so bound up with the notions of interventionism, we now face this strange truth: we ought to spend less on our military but we should spend more on defense. Our troops are underpaid, untertrained and poorly outfitted for the tasks we have given them. We are vulnerable to missile attack, and how do we spend our constituents money? What priorities have we set in this body? We vote to purchase a few more bombs to drop over Serbia or Iraq.
!CITE:
1999-46:10
Our policy is flawed. Our nation is at risk. Our defenses are weakened by those people who say they are “hawks” and those who claim they “support the troops.” Our policy is the end to which we must make ourselves effective, and currently our policy is all wrong. Our constitution grants us the obligation to defend this nation, and the right to defend only this nation. I should hope that we will never be prepared to police the world. We should not be militarily prepared nor philosophically prepared for such a policy. We need to refocus our military force policy and the way to do that is clear. It is to return it to the constitutionally authorized role of defending our country. Again, this is not simply a question of policy, and not merely a political question. No Mr. Speaker, the source of our quandary is the minds and hearts of human beings. Bad philosophy will always lead to bad policy precisely because ideas do have consequences.
!CITE:
1999-46:11
Here the bad idea to be found at the source of our malady is absurd pragmatism, a desire to be “effective” without having any idea what the end is that we trying to affect. It becomes evident in our policy and in our language.
!CITE:
1999-46:12
“Now we are in it we must win it.” But we know not what “win” means, other than “be effective.” But we are “unprepared,” but unprepared for what? Unprepared to be effective! But what is it, we are ineffective at achieving? “Well, winning,” is the reply. Without ends our policies become tautological. And with the wrong policy, our execution becomes disastrous. We must reject this absurd pragmatism and reestablish a military policy based on the defense of our nation. Only then we will be able to take the steps necessary for effectiveness, and preparedness. No billions in appropriations can make our present policy effective.
!TITLE:
Supplemental Appropriations
!DATE:
18 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will later today vote on the conference report to H.R. 1141, the bill to further fund NATO’s aggression in Yugoslavia. The President has requested $7.9 billion but Congress has felt compelled to give him $15 billion.
!CITE:
1999-47:2
Congress does not endorse the war. We voted overwhelmingly against declaring war and yet we are giving the President twice the amount he requested to wage the war. It does not make any sense.
!CITE:
1999-47:3
We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set.
!CITE:
1999-47:4
Reimbursement for the Persian Gulf War has helped to perpetuate that conflict now going on for nearly a decade. It is time to think about a more sensible foreign policy.
!CITE:
1999-47:5
We should not encourage the senseless and immoral NATO aggression against Serbia. The funding of this war should not be approved, no matter what special interest appropriations have been attached to the initial request to gain support for this special spending measure.
!CITE:
1999-47:6
Our bombing continues to complicate the mess we helped create in Yugoslavia. Just about everyone concedes that the war cannot be won without massive use of ground troops, which fortunately no one is willing to commit. So the senseless bombing continues while civilian casualties mount. And whom are we killing? It looks like we are killing as many innocent Albanians for whom we have gone to war as innocent Serbs.
!CITE:
1999-47:7
Why are we killing anybody? There has been no aggression against the United States and no war has been declared. It is time to stop this senseless bombing.
!CITE:
1999-47:8
The U.S. has become the world’s bully. In recent months we have bombed Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and China; and in recent years, many others.
!CITE:
1999-47:9
The fetish we have with bombing anybody who looks cross-eyed at us has preoccupied our leaders for several decades regardless of which party has been in power.
!CITE:
1999-47:10
We may not be willing to admit it, but it is hardly the way to win friends and influence people. It is lousy diplomacy. It must stop. The only reason we get away with it is because we are the military and economic superpower, but that only leads to smoldering resentment and an unsustainable financial commitment that will in due time come to an end. Our superiority is not guaranteed to last.
!CITE:
1999-47:11
NATO, through their daily briefings, has been anxious to reassure us that its cause is just. Yet NATO cannot refute the charge that the refugee problem was made much worse with the commencement of the bombing.
!CITE:
1999-47:12
Yesterday it was reported in the Los Angeles Times by Paul Watson, in stark contrast to NATO’s propaganda, that in Svetlje, Yugoslavia, 15,000 Albanians displaced by the bombing remain near their homes in north Kosovo, including hundreds of young military age men, quote, strolling along the dirt roads or lying on the grass on a sunny day. There were no concentration camps, no forced labor and no one serving as human shields according to an Albanian interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Many admitted they left their homes because they were scared after the bombing started. Some of the Albanians said the only time they saw the Serb police was when they came to sell cigarettes to the Albanians.
!CITE:
1999-47:13
We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO’s motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO’s concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops.
!CITE:
1999-47:14
Even with NATO’s effort to justify its aggression, they rarely demonstrate a hit on a military target. All this fine star wars technology and we see reruns of strikes with perfect accuracy hitting infrastructures like bridges and buildings. I have yet to see one picture of a Serbian tank being hit, and I am sure if they had some classy film like that we would have seen it many times on the nightly television.
!CITE:
1999-47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.
!CITE:
1999-47:16
I am sick and tired of hearing NATO’s daily apologies.
!CITE:
1999-47:17
There’s nothing America can be proud of in this effort and if we don’t quickly get out of it, it could very well escalate and the getting out made impossible. The surest and quickest way to do this is for Congress today to reject the funding for this war.
!CITE:
1999-47:18
The only answer to senseless foreign intervention is a pro-American constitutional policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations; a policy of friendship and trade with those who are willing and neutrality with others who are involved in conflict. This is the only policy that makes sense and can give us the peace and prosperity all Americans desire.
!TITLE:
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
!DATE:
18 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong opposition to the supplemental appropriation.
!CITE:
1999-48:2
The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war.
!CITE:
1999-48:3
And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare war.
!CITE:
1999-48:4
We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I do not agree with.
!CITE:
1999-48:5
But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in order to get some more votes.
!CITE:
1999-48:6
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.
!CITE:
1999-48:7
We have to finally say, “enough is enough.” This is how we get into trouble. This is how we make mistakes. And every day we hear of another mistake and apologies being made, innocent people dying. We should not vote for this supplemental funding.
!TITLE:
Introduction of H.R. 1789
!DATE:
18 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enlist support for a bill I have introduced to repeal statutes which have now resulted in more than one hundred years of government intervention in the marketplace. In 1890, at the behest of Senator Sherman, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed allowing the federal government to intervene in the process of competition, inter alia, whenever a firm captured market share by offering a better product at a lower price. The Market Process Restoration Act of 1999, H.R. 1789, will preclude such intervention.
!CITE:
1999-49:2
Antitrust statutes governmentally facilitate interference in the voluntary market transactions of individuals. Evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced gain.
!CITE:
1999-49:3
Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the “world of antitrust” as “reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously.” Antitrust is, according to Greenspan “a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, ‘too much’ competition is condemned as ‘cutthroat’. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict — after the fact.” And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality.
!CITE:
1999-49:4
The Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880’s—protectionism. the chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Senator Sherman himself.
!CITE:
1999-49:5
One function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from the certain source of monopoly — Government’s grant of exclusive privilege. But, as George Reisman, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management in Los Angeles, explains “everyone, it seems, took for granted the prevailing belief that the essential feature of monopoly is that a given product or service is provided by just one supplier. On this view of things, Microsoft, like Alcoa and Standard Oil before it, belongs in the same category as the old British East India Company or such more recent instances of companies with exclusive government franchises as the local gas or electric company or the U.S. Postal Service with respect to the delivery of first class mail. What all of these cases have in common, and which is considered essential to the existence of monopoly, according to the prevailing view, is that they all represent instances in which there is only one seller. By the same token, what is not considered essential, according to the prevailing view of monopoly, is whether the sellers position depends on the initiation of physical force or, to the contrary, is achieved as the result of freedom of competition and the choice of the market.”
!CITE:
1999-49:6
Microsoft, Alcoa,and Standard Oil represent cases of a sole supplier, or at least come close to such a case. However, totally unlike the cases of exclusive government franchises, their position in the market is not (or was not) the result of the initiation of physical force but rather the result of their successful free competition. That is, they became sole suppliers by virtue of being able to produce products profitably at prices too low for other suppliers to remain in or enter the market, or to produce products whose performance and quality others simply could not match.
!CITE:
1999-49:7
Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: “Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.”
!CITE:
1999-49:8
It is the dynamic model of competition under which only “free” entry is required that insures maximization of consumer welfare within the nature-given condition of scarcity and reconciles the ideal of pure liberty with that of economic efficiency. The free market in the world of production may be termed “free competition” or “free entry”, meaning that in a free society anyone is free to compete and produce in any field he chooses. “Free competition” is the application of liberty to the sphere of production: the freedom to buy, sell, and transform one’s property without violent interference by an external power.
!CITE:
1999-49:9
As argued by Alan Greenspan, “the ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return.”
!CITE:
1999-49:10
The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.
!TITLE:
Honoring The Victoria High School Victoriadores, Victoria, TX
!DATE:
19 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the best drill team in the nation and in the world: the Victoria High School Victoriadores from Victoria, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director, assisted by Laura Klimist, Choreographer, this outstanding group of ladies and gentlemen won many national honors at the marching Auxiliaries/Seaworld National Championship Competition. Their awards include the Choreography Award for all dances—jazz, high kick, military, lyrical and show production; Winner’s Circle (all dances scored 95 or above from all judges); named Best in Class for having the highest overall scores in the competition; and the National Champion Jacket Winners for earning the highest score from all categories and all dances.
!CITE:
1999-50:2
After this impressive victory, the Victoriadores aimed for the championship at the Miss Dance/Drill Team USA Pageant and Competition. They easily took first place in military, high kick and show production and second place in lyrical, and they earned the Producers Award for the best overall presentation.
!CITE:
1999-50:3
The taste of victory was so sweet, the Victoriadores decided to take the International Championship, competing against Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, Mexico and South America. The team won first and second place in Military and High Kick, with New Zealand placing third.
!CITE:
1999-50:4
This group of students deserves the honors it has earned. I commend each one of them to you:
Brooke Adams
Chelsea Akin
Andrea Alvarez
Jennifer Alvarez
Pia Arifiles
Iza Arifiles
Rachel Barber
Samantha Bernal
April Blackwell
Liz Boldt
Meredyth Bryant
Lisa Buckler
Monica Canchola
Misty Cavazos
Stephanie Cernosek
Krysta Chacon
Melissa Chavez
Cody Cole
Kyra Coleman
Cari Collett
Kristin Creech
Carrie Dahlstrom
Nichol Dally
Katie Dayoc
D’Lisa DeLuna
Joey Dominquez
Cash Donahoe
Wendy Dry
Carly Dunnam
Jamie Dybala
Dyann Erwin
Bianca Estrada
Nicole Garcia
Michelle Garcia
Mandy Gaskamp
Clarisa Gonzales
Valarie Gonzales
Amber Grunewald
Lacey Hall
Erin Hanzelka
Megan Hearn
Theresa Hernandez
Brandy Hill
Blair Hunt
Amy Innocenti
Melissa Jecker
Laura Jecker
Eric Jentsch
Ida Jimenez
Kelly Johnson
Allison Jones
Morgan Kallus
Jill Kauffman
Lindsey Klein
	Hilary Koenig
Emily Loeb
Amanda Lott
Aimee Lovik
Waverly Lynch
Tara Marek
Kelly Martin
Ashley Martin
Erin Martin
Nina Martinez
Stacy McCants
Sarah McKay
Taysha McKibbon
Tyler Meador
Valerie Medina
Corie Meinke
Garrett Middleton
James Miller
Lori Monclova
Tammy Newbern
Jamie O’Quinn
Jennifer Padilla
Dusty Patek
Aaron Pearson
Matina Pflaum
Sara Quitta
Melissa Ragsdale
Katie Reimann
Natalie Ricks
Brandi Roth
Jennifer Salinas
Brianne Schmidt
Penny Schumacher
Sara Schweke
Jamie Sedlacek
Tenille Shafer
Loren Shafer
Heather Shannon
Justin Sheppard
Brett Shoemaker
Amanda Stewart
Stacey Talley
Juli Teeters
Bianca Tilley
Amanda Trevino
Lauren Tuso
Elane Urbano
Pam Urbish
Jessica Vaughan
Whitney Wilkinson
Lindsey Williams
Laura Windwehen
Melanie Winston
D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director/ Choreographer Laura Klimist, Choreographer
!CITE:
1999-50:5
I am proud to have these national and international championships in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perserverance shown by each student which was necessary to reach these goals. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and guardians of these students which helped them reach their goals.
!CITE:
1999-50:6
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the Victoria High School Victoriadores on these impressive achievements.
!TITLE:
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
!DATE:
25 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent’s tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets.
!CITE:
1999-51:2
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
!CITE:
1999-51:3
The moral decay of our nation is a serious issue that must be addressed. However, after some forty years of federal meddling in education and other social issues, it is clear politicians on Capitol Hill have made matters worse for our children, not better.
!TITLE:
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
!DATE:
25 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, a joint resolution disapproving a Postal Service Regulation which tramples on the privacy of the two million Americans who rent mailboxes from Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies. Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to rent, a commercial mailbox will have to provide the receiving agency with personal information, including two items of valid identification, one of which must contain a photograph of the applicant and one of which must contain a “serial number — traceable to the bearer.” Of course, in most cases that number will be today’s de facto national ID number — the Social Security number.
!CITE:
1999-52:2
The receiving agency must then send the information to the Post Office, which will maintain the information in a database. Furthermore, the Post Office authorizes the Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies to collect and maintain photocopies of the forms of identification presented by the box renter. My colleagues might be interested to know that the Post Office is prohibited from doing this by the Privacy Act of 1974. I hope my colleagues are as outraged as I am by the Post Office’s mandating that their competitors do what Congress has forbidden the Post Office to do directly.
!CITE:
1999-52:3
Thanks to the Post Office’s Federal Government-granted monopoly on first-class delivery service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with the Postal Service. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency with a choice: either provide the federal government with your name, address, photograph and social security number, or surrender the right to receive communications from one’s fellow citizens in one’s preferred manner.
!CITE:
1999-52:4
This regulation, ironically, was issued at the same time the Post Office was issuing a stamp honoring Ayn Rand, one of the twentieth century’s greatest champions of liberty. Another irony connected to this regulation is that it comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery.
!CITE:
1999-52:5
This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office’s mailbox service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to get a list of their competitor’s customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
!CITE:
1999-52:6
Coincidentally, this regulation will also raise the operating cost on the Post Office’s private competitors for private mailbox services. Some who have examined this bill estimate that it could impose costs as high as $1 billion on these small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long-term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. This may force some of these businesses into bankruptcy.
!CITE:
1999-52:7
During the rule’s comment period, more than 8,000 people formally denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However, those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in “interstate commerce,” is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal. Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic privacy.
!CITE:
1999-52:8
I have introduced this joint resolution in hopes that it will be considered under the expedited procedures established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. This procedure allows Congress to overturn onerous regulations such as the subject of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the entire point of this procedure to provide Congress with a means to stop federal actions which pose an immediate threat to the rights of Americans. Thanks to these agency review provisions, Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. I challenge my colleagues to take full advantage of this process and use it to stop this outrageous rule.
!CITE:
1999-52:9
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to overturn Post Office’s regulations requiring customers of private mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and social security number. The Federal Government should not force any American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the Congressional Review Act.
!TITLE:
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
!DATE:
27 May 1999
!CITE:
1999-53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our involvement in war at this particular time.
!CITE:
1999-53:2
Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war.
!CITE:
1999-53:3
Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted.
!CITE:
1999-53:4
But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember this when it comes time to vote for the final passage.
!CITE:
1999-53:5
We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security.
!CITE:
1999-53:6
It might be well to also note that this bill does not do much more for fiscal conservatives. The President asked for a certain amount for the defense of this country, but we have seen fit to raise him more than $8 billion, spend more money, more money that is so often not spent in our national defense. At the same time, we must also remember that when we vote on this bill, and this rule allows it, more than $10 billion will be in excess of the budget agreement of 1997.
!TITLE:
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
!DATE:
7 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian civil war, now going on for years, was near ending until NATO chose to enter on the side of the KLA seeking independence. Aggressively entering the fray by invading a foreign nation, in direct opposition to its charter, NATO has expanded the war and multiplied the casualties. The impasse now reached, although predictable, prompts only more NATO bombing and killing of innocent civilians on both sides. It is difficult to see how any good can come from this continuous march of folly, but I am going to try.
!CITE:
1999-54:2
Number one, the U.N. has suffered a justified setback in its effort to be the world’s governing body of the new world order, and that is good. By NATO refusing to seek a U.N. resolution of support for its war effort, it makes the U.N. look irrelevant. Now NATO is using the U.N. to seek a peace settlement by including the Russians, who agree to play the game as long as additional American tax dollars flow to them through the IMF. The U.N. looks weak, irrelevant, ignored, and used. The truth is winning out.
!CITE:
1999-54:3
Number two, NATO is on the verge of self-destruction. Since the purpose of NATO to defend against a ruthless Soviet system no longer exists, that is good, NATO, in choosing to break its own rules looks totally ineffective and has lost credibility. The U.S. can get out of NATO, come home, save some money and let Europe tend to its own affairs, and we can then contribute to peace, not war.
!CITE:
1999-54:4
Number three, Tony Blair’s true character has now become known to the world. He has not only annoyed many Americans, but many Germans, French, Italians and Greeks as well. By Blair demanding more American bombs, money and the introduction of ground troops, many have become skeptical of his judgment. It is much easier now to challenge his influence over Bill Clinton and NATO, and that is not only good, but necessary.
!CITE:
1999-54:5
Number four, more Americans every day are discovering that military spending is not equivalent to defense spending. This is a good start. It is clearly evident that when useless immoral wars are pursued, money is wasted, weapons are consumed, and national security is endangered, opposite to everything that is supposed to be achieved through defense spending. A foolish policy of foreign interventionism, no matter how much money is spent on the military, can never substitute for a sensible, pro-American policy of friendship and trade with all those countries willing to engage.
!CITE:
1999-54:6
Number five, the ill-gotten war has shown once again that air power alone, and especially when pursued without a declaration of war and a determination to win, serves no useful purpose. Although most military experts have stated this for years, it is now readily apparent to anyone willing to study the issue. Many more Americans now agree that war not fought for the defense of one’s country and for the preservation of liberty is immoral and rarely brings about victory. If we remember that in the future, that would be good.
!CITE:
1999-54:7
Number six, NATO’s war against Yugoslovia has made it clearly apparent that world leaders place relative value on human life. This is valuable information that should be helped to restore U.S. national sovereignty. According to NATO’s policy, the lives of the Kosovars are of greater value than the Serbs, Rwandans, Kurds, Tibetans, or East Timorans. Likewise, oil and European markets command more bloodshed in support of powerful financial interests than the suffering of millions in Asia and Africa. This knowledge of NATO’s hypocrisy should some day lead to a fair and more peaceful world.
!CITE:
1999-54:8
Number seven, the issue of whether or not a President can initiate and wage an unconstitutional war without declaration and in violation of the War Powers Resolution has prompted a positive and beneficial debate in the Congress and throughout the Nation. This is a necessary first step to get Congress to regain its prerogatives over the issue of war.
!CITE:
1999-54:9
Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years.
!CITE:
1999-54:10
Number nine, NATO’s arrogance has once again restated another truth worth remembering: Might does not make right.
!CITE:
1999-54:11
Number ten, the 19 nations’ military actions against a tiny state shows that alliances to promote aggression do not work. The moral high ground is not achieved because despite the pronouncements of concerns for the suffering of the innocent, when survival is not at stake and when the defense against an aggressor is not an issue, war by committee is doomed to fail. This is a lesson that needs restating.
!CITE:
1999-54:12
Number 11: NATO’s blundering policy ironically will leave a legacy that will allow rebuilding after the new world order disintegrates.
!CITE:
1999-54:13
To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo’s independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens.
!CITE:
1999-54:14
12. Another lesson that will be learned from this misadventure, but unfortunately not soon enough, is that empires self-destruct out of their own weighty arrogance and blindness to the truth. Inevitably powerful empires — and it is said we are the only super power left and have great world-wide responsibilities — pursue a march of folly, a course upon which we inextricably find ourselves.
!CITE:
1999-54:15
If these lessons are remembered, we will have a much better chance of achieving peace and prosperity throughout the world.
!TITLE:
H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
!DATE:
7 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, because this is small business appreciation week I would like to remind my colleagues of the importance of enacting HJ Res 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act. HJ Res 55 repeals recently enacted Post Office regulations requiring Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs) to collect personal information about their customers, such as their name, address, social security number, and photograph. These regulations not only force small businesses to intrude into their customer’s privacy, they could impose costs as high as $1 billion on small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. Some small businesses may even be forced into bankruptcy.
!CITE:
1999-55:2
Businesses like Mailboxes, etc., must turn the collected information over to the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to force their competitors to provide them with their customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
!CITE:
1999-55:3
It is ironic that this regulation comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery.
!CITE:
1999-55:4
Mr. Speaker, Congress must do more than talk about how it appreciates small business, it must work to lift the burden of big government from America’s job-creating small businesses. Passing HJ Res 55 and protecting Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies from the Post Offices’ costly and anti-competitive regulations would be a great place to start.
!TITLE:
Opposing Endless War In Kosovo
!DATE:
10 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a very important amendment, and what we do on it will be with us for a long time.
!CITE:
1999-56:2
We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians.
!CITE:
1999-56:3
It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.
!CITE:
1999-56:4
It is claimed now that we have had a great victory. But what we are doing now, after bombing a country to smithereens, is laying plans to occupy it. We are asking the American people to make an endless commitment to occupying this country.
!CITE:
1999-56:5
A few years back, we were going to occupy Bosnia for a short period of time. We are still occupying Bosnia, spending between $10 billion, $20 billion already, depending on the estimate.
!CITE:
1999-56:6
A few years back it was in our national interests to be involved in the Persian Gulf. We had to do a lot of bombing there and a lot of fighting. We are still bombing in the Persian Gulf. I mean, when will it end? Where do our borders end? What are the limits to our sovereignty? Where is our responsibility? It seems like it is endless anyplace, anywhere we have to go. We are now supporting an empire.
!CITE:
1999-56:7
No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what happens, we say, “If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb you.”
!CITE:
1999-56:8
I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the Kosovo war; it’s only the beginning of an endless occupation and the possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest that influences our foreign policy.
!TITLE:
Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth
!DATE:
10 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett’s “Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor”, which recently appeared in The Wall Street Journal, to all of my colleagues. Mr. Bartlett’s article provides an excellent overview of the evidence that an increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage reduces teenage employment. Since those shut out of entry-level work are unlikely to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future, an increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for millions of Americans. This point was also highlighted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in testimony before the Senate in January when he pointed out that “All the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that the people who are the most needy of getting on the lower rungs of the ladder of our income scales, develop skills, getting the training, are unable to earn the minimum wage. As a consequence, they cannot get started. And I think we have to be very careful about thinking that we can somehow raise standards of living by mandating an increase in the minimum wage rate.” I hope all of my colleagues will carefully consider how increasing the minimum wage decreases opportunities for our nation’s youth and refrain from reducing economic opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder by raising the minimum wage.
!CITE:
1999-57:2
Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow at the NCPA. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury Department from 1988 to 1993, and Senior Policy Analyst at the White House from 1987 to 1988. He is an expert commentator on taxes and economic policy, the author of two books and, a syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in many papers including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He regularly appears on national television and radio programs.
!CITE:
1999-57:3
MINIMUM WAGE HIKES HELP POLITICIANS, NOT THE POOR
(By Bruce Bartlett)
It now appears likely that the Republican Congress will soon raise the minimum wage for the second time in three years. In 1996 the minimum increased to the present $5.15 an hour from $4.25; the increase now being considered would bring the figure up to $6.15 by 2002. This is bad news, for as many as 436,000 jobs may disappear as a result of the increase.
!CITE:
1999-57:4
During the last debate, two arguments were advanced in favor of raising the minimum wage. The first claimed that the minimum wage had fallen sharply in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since the previous increase in 1991. But with inflation having all but vanished in the 19 months since the last increase, this argument does not hold true today.
!CITE:
1999-57:5
The second argument, based almost exclusively on a 1995 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, was that raising the minimum wage actually reduced unemployment. Since then, however, virtually every study done on the subject has confirmed longstanding research showing that raising the minimum wage invariably has a negative impact on employment, particularly among teenagers and minorities.
!CITE:
1999-57:6
The federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, but applied only to the small minority of workers who were engaged in interstate commerce. The first data we have on teenage unemployment are from 1948. From then until a significant expansion of the minimum wage in 1956, teenage unemployment was quite low by today’s standards and was actually lower for blacks than whites. Between 1948 and 1955 unemployment averaged 11.3% for black teenage males and 11.6% for whites.
!CITE:
1999-57:7
Beginning in 1956, when the minimum wage rose from 75 cents to $1, unemployment rates between the two groups began to diverge. By 1960, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was up to 22.7%, while the white rate stood at 14.6%.
!CITE:
1999-57:8
Despite such evidence, supporters continued to push for ever higher and more inclusive minimum-wage rates, which were raised almost yearly between 1961 and 1981. At each point the unemployment rate for black teenagers tended to ratchet higher. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teenage males averaged 40.7% — four times its early 1950s level, when the minimum wage was much lower and its coverage less extensive. That year, the federally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that each 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces teenage employment by between 1% and 3%.
!CITE:
1999-57:9
Subsequent research, based on the effects of the previous two minimum-wage increases, continues to confirm this estimate. A study of the 1990–91 increases, which raised the rate by 27%, found that it reduced overall teenage employment by 7.3% and black teenage employment by 10%. Similarly, a study of the 1996 increases found a decline in employment of between 2% and 6% for each 10% increase in the minimum wage.
!CITE:
1999-57:10
In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, economist Kenneth Couch Translated these percentages into raw numbers. At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs lost in 1997. At the higher end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997. He estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teenage employment by between 145,000 and 436,000 jobs.
!CITE:
1999-57:11
The fact is that the vast bulk of economic research demonstrates that the minimum wage has extremely harmful effects on the very people it is designed to aid — the poor:
!CITE:
1999-57:12
The minimum wage unambiguously reduces employment. The September 1998 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, an official publication of the American Economic Association, contains a survey of labor economists on the employment effects of the minimum wage. When asked to estimate the impact of raising the minimum wage, the average effect was estimated at minus 0.21%, meaning that a 10% rise in the minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%. This puts to rest any notion that economists have changed their view that in general higher minimum wages reduce employment.
!CITE:
1999-57:13
Increases in the minimum wage have a disproportionate impact on teenagers and the poor. The minus 2.1% figure cited above is an overall impact. For those currently earning less than the new minimum wage, the impact is much greater. For example, prior to the 1996 increase, 74.4% of workers between the ages of 16 and 24 already earned more than $5.15, and 4.3% were legally exempt from the minimum wage law. Thus the employment losses were concentrated among the 21.3% of workers making the minimum wage or slightly more. When one attributes total employment losses entirely to this group, it turns out that the employment loss figure is minus 1%, according to economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and William Wascher. This means a 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces employment among this group by 10%.
!CITE:
1999-57:14
Increases in the minimum wage add almost nothing to the incomes of poor families. There are two reasons for this. First, employment losses reduce the incomes of some workers more than the higher minimum wage increases the incomes of others. Second, the vast bulk of those affected by the minimum wage, especially teenagers, live in families that are not poor. Thus a study by economists Richard Burkhauser and Martha Harrison found that 80% of the net benefits of the last minimum-wage increase went to families well above the poverty level; almost half went to those with incomes more than three times the poverty level. (The poverty level is about $17,000 for a family of four.)
!CITE:
1999-57:15
The minimum wage reduces education and training and increases long-term unemployment for low-skilled adults. Messrs. Neumark and Wascher found that higher minimum wages cause employers to reduce on-the-job training. They also found that higher minimum wages encourage more teenagers to drop out of school, lured into the labor force by wages that to them seem high. These teenagers often displace low-skilled adults, who frequently become semipermanently unemployed. Lacking skills and education, these teenagers pay a price for the minimum wage in the form of lower incomes over their entire lifetimes.
!CITE:
1999-57:16
A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in Washington. But whatever the political realities may be, it’s still a bad idea.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
14 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interest by investing in politicians.
!CITE:
1999-58:2
The problem is not a lack of Federal laws or rules regulating campaign spending. Therefore, more laws will not help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
!CITE:
1999-58:3
There is tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers’ dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way the system works.
!CITE:
1999-58:4
Equalizing competition and balancing powers such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
!CITE:
1999-58:5
The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans.
!CITE:
1999-58:6
The reformers’ argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.
!CITE:
1999-58:7
Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
!CITE:
1999-58:8
The quasi two-party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. The media become a big winner. Their influence grows as the private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it is clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.
!CITE:
1999-58:9
Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government.
!CITE:
1999-58:10
More regulation of political speech through control of private money without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
!CITE:
1999-58:11
True, reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize and show preferential treatment.
!CITE:
1999-58:12
Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process, but we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more laws. We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their representatives in Congress are duly influenced or unduly influenced, but the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way.
!CITE:
1999-58:13
The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and do not vote because they do not believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans who now sit out the elections to participate in the electoral process.
!CITE:
1999-58:14
Campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by “investing” in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
!CITE:
1999-58:15
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but his cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government—legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
!CITE:
1999-58:16
There’s tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self defense— since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
!CITE:
1999-58:17
Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising political speech through regulating political money.
!CITE:
1999-58:18
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.
!CITE:
1999-58:19
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we capitulate to the special interest groups.”
!CITE:
1999-58:20
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed.
!CITE:
1999-58:21
Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending—a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
!CITE:
1999-58:22
The quasi-two party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third-party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. They will never qualify for equal treatment since all campaign laws are written by Republicans and Democrats. The same will be true when it comes to divvying up taxpayer’s money for elections.
!CITE:
1999-58:23
The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views.
!CITE:
1999-58:24
The wealthy gain a significant edge since it’s clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boast for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.
!CITE:
1999-58:25
Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger.
!CITE:
1999-58:26
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral Political Action Committees that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent Members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.
!CITE:
1999-58:27
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
!CITE:
1999-58:28
True reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.
!CITE:
1999-58:29
We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their Representatives in Congress are unduly influenced. But the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way. The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and don’t vote because they don’t believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees, and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans, who now sit out the elections, to participate in the electoral process. Restricting political money and speech will only further hamper competition and discourage citizens from voting.
!TITLE:
Flag Day 1999
!DATE:
14 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a great symbol of our nation, the flag of the United States of America on this Flag Day 1999. I wonder how frequently we take for granted this symbol, how often we fail to consider what it is and indeed what it represents.
!CITE:
1999-59:2
The flag contains 13 stripes and 50 stars. Those 13 stripes represent the first thirteen states, each of which emanating from colonies of British America. These 13 colonies came together because they were opposed to continued oppression by the British executive and the British parliament. After numerous and significant entreaties seeking reconciliation, the British American came to understand that political independence and local self-government was the only way to insure against the most dangerous of tyrannies.
!CITE:
1999-59:3
Was this eternal truth forgotten immediately upon the founding of our nation? Hardly. From the Articles of Confederation through to the original U.S. Constitution a clear understanding of the necessity of the separation of powers was maintained. And the genius of that division of powers lay only so partially in the three federal branches, each reliant upon some different direct authority but all resting government finally on the consent of the governed. Indeed, it has rightly been said that “the genius of the constitution is best summed up in that clause which reserves to the states or to the people those powers which are not specifically delegated to the federal government.”
!CITE:
1999-59:4
So those states came together to form a compact, indeed to form a nation and, they gave specific but limited powers to the federal government. From those original thirteen stars and stripes, representing the individual states, came one. E pluribus unum. And this is what the flag and those stripes represent.
!CITE:
1999-59:5
Today the flag contains 50 stars to represent the 50 current states. From 13 came 50 and in this way “E pluribus pluribum” is also true. From many came more.
!CITE:
1999-59:6
Yes, Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol but certainly not the sum. America means so much more to us than symbol devoid of substance. It means those rights, inalienable and indivisible, which are life, liberty and property. Property not just as an object of ownership but as an idea. Private property is indeed the bedrock of all privacy. And private enjoyment of property is not simply exemplified by the right to hold, but to use and dispose of as the owner sees fit. This is at the very essence of property, and it is in fact the meaning of the pursuit of happiness.
!CITE:
1999-59:7
And those stars and stripes represent an idea about how it is that we should hope to actually realize the protection of all these rights that we as Americans hold so dear. Namely, we the people vest in those very states that formed this union, the power to legislate for the benefit of the residents thereof.
!CITE:
1999-59:8
This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution.
!CITE:
1999-59:9
Now confusion has come upon us. We are far removed from the days of the constitution’s ratification and hence it seems we have lost that institutional memory that points to the eternal truths that document affirms.
!CITE:
1999-59:10
Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of “unAmerican” and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties.
!CITE:
1999-59:11
To do what is right we must understand and honor the symbol and the sum of our nation. We must contemplate the flag and the constitution, both of which point us to the key basis of liberty that can be found only in local self-government. Our flag and our constitution both honor and symbolize federalism and when we undermine federalism we dishonor our flag, our constitution and our heritage.
!CITE:
1999-59:12
The men who founded our nation risked the ultimate price for freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to the founding of a republic based on local self-government. We should honor them, our republic and its most direct symbol, our U.S. flag by taking a stand against any rule, law or constitutional amendment which would expand the role of our federal government.
!TITLE:
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
!DATE:
15 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will this week fully debate the issue of school violence. If we had remained a constitutional republic, this debate would not be going on. I sincerely believe this kind of violence would be greatly reduced, and for the violence that did occur, it would be dealt with as a local and school issue. Responding emotionally with feel-good legislation in the Congress serves no worthwhile purpose, but makes the politician feel like he is doing something beneficial.
!CITE:
1999-60:2
In dealing with the problem of violence, there is a large group here in the Congress quite willing to attack the first amendment while defending the second. Likewise, there is a strong contingency here for attacking the second amendment while defending the first.
!CITE:
1999-60:3
My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights.
!CITE:
1999-60:4
Instead of protecting the first and second amendment, we are likely in the name of conciliation to diminish the protections afforded us by both the first and second amendment. It does not make a lot of sense.
!CITE:
1999-60:5
Curbing free expression, even that which is violent and profane, is un-American and cannot solve our school problem. Likewise, gun laws do not work, and more of them only attack the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Before the first Federal gun law in 1934, there was a lot less gun violence, and guns were readily accessible to everyone. However, let me remind my colleagues, under the Constitution, gun regulations and crime control are supposed to be State issues.
!CITE:
1999-60:6
There are no authentic anti-gun proponents in this debate. The only argument is who gets the guns, the people or the Federal bureaucrats. Proponents of more gun laws want to transfer the guns to the 80,000 and growing Federal Government officials who make up the national police force.
!CITE:
1999-60:7
The argument made by these proponents of gun control is that freedom is best protected by the people not owning guns in that more BATF and other agency members should have them and become more pervasive in our society.
!CITE:
1999-60:8
It is disingenuous by either side to imply that those who disagree with them are unconcerned about violence. Everyone wants less violence. Deciding on the cause of the hostile environment in our public schools is the key to solving this problem.
!CITE:
1999-60:9
A few points I would like to make.
!CITE:
1999-60:10
Number one, private schools are much safer than public schools.
!CITE:
1999-60:11
Number two, public school violence has increased since the Federal government took over the public school system.
!CITE:
1999-60:12
Number three, discipline is difficult due to the rules, regulations, and threats of lawsuits as a consequence of Federal Government involvement in public education.
!CITE:
1999-60:13
Number four, reading about violence throughout history has not been a cause of violence.
!CITE:
1999-60:14
Number five, lack of gun laws has not been a cause of violence.
!CITE:
1999-60:15
Number six, the government’s practice of using violence to achieve social goals condones its use. All government welfare is based on the threat of government violence.
!CITE:
1999-60:16
Number seven, Star Wars technology, casually displayed on our TV screens showing the blowing up of bridges, trains, sewer plants, and embassies all in the name of humanitarianism glibly sanctions violence as a proper tool for bringing about change.
!CITE:
1999-60:17
Number eight, the Federal government’s role in Waco and the burning alive of innocent children in the name of doing good sends a confused message to our youth.
!CITE:
1999-60:18
Number nine, government’s role in defending and even paying to kill a half-born child cannot but send a powerful message to our young people that all life is cheap, both that of the victims and the perpetrators of violence.
!CITE:
1999-60:19
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.
!CITE:
1999-60:20
Ultimately, though, only a moral society, with the family its key element, will make the citizens and the government less violent.
!TITLE:
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
!DATE:
16 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
!CITE:
1999-61:2
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule. I believe 2 days of debate on this very important issue is about as fair as we can get. I know a lot of people are not satisfied with the rule. But I think under the circumstances it is fair, and I will support the rule.
!CITE:
1999-61:3
However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I see that one-half of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems strange because see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.
!CITE:
1999-61:4
That does not make a whole lot of sense to me because I think that we are obligated here in the Congress to defend both the first and the second amendment and were not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments.
!CITE:
1999-61:5
We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.
!CITE:
1999-61:6
So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.
!CITE:
1999-61:7
Recently there was a bipartisan study put out and chaired by Ed Meese, and he is not considered a radical libertarian. He was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Post as to what we here in the Congress are doing with nationalizing our police force. The editorial states: “The basic contention of the report, which was produced by a bipartisan group headed by former Attorney General Edward Meese, is that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a national government.”
!CITE:
1999-61:8
Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say the same thing. “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.”
!CITE:
1999-61:9
We are unfortunately bound and determined to continue this trend. It looks like we are going to do so today. We are going to place a lot more rules and regulations restricting both the first and second amendment.
!CITE:
1999-61:10
We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?
!CITE:
1999-61:11
So, therefore, the next step will be, if we can limit the depiction of pornography and then violence, be the limitation of the depiction of a philosophy that deals with religion or political systems such as Communism or other fascism.
!CITE:
1999-61:12
I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the first or the second amendment.
!TITLE:
Consequences Of Gun Control
!DATE:
16 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my colleagues read today’s Washington Times article entitled “Disarming Good People” before voting on unconstitutional and counter-effective gun legislation. Outlined within, are some of the disastrous consequences of enacting more gun control. While the lawmakers demand even more restrictions on the sale, ownership, and the use of firearms, we currently have the highest level of gun control in our Nation’s history. Yet only 50 years ago, there were no violent incidents in schools like the recent tragedy. Instead of rushing to disarm the law-abiding, let us first examine the current 20,000 gun laws already on the books for their effectiveness.
!CITE:
1999-62:2
DISARMING GOOD PEOPLE

Editor’s note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the signatories appear here.
!CITE:
1999-62:3
After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an understandable desire to “do something.” Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don’t necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people’s lives and safety.
!CITE:
1999-62:4
These — gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves.
!CITE:
1999-62:5
Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.” The reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack.
!CITE:
1999-62:6
The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal.
!CITE:
1999-62:7
Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate.
!CITE:
1999-62:8
The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can posses a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding 18- to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend themselves.
!CITE:
1999-62:9
Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection.
!CITE:
1999-62:10
Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people’s safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home even though that is actually the safest course of action.
!CITE:
1999-62:11
Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs.
!CITE:
1999-62:12
With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised.
!CITE:
1999-62:13
Sincerely, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin- Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John’s University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.
!TITLE:
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
!DATE:
22 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have on our schedule the debate and the vote on a constitutional amendment, the amendment that would make the desecration of the flag illegal. Many who support this amendment imply that those of us who oppose it for some reason might be unpatriotic. That, of course, is not true.
!CITE:
1999-63:2
I would like to call attention to my fellow colleagues just exactly what I see us doing by amending the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-63:3
The very first thing that Communist China did after it took over Hong Kong was to pass legislation to make sure that it was illegal to desecrate the Chinese flag. Now let me say that one time again. As soon as Red China took over Hong Kong, that was the very first thing they did. One of the first pieces of legislation was to make sure that the people of Hong Kong knew it was illegal to do anything to desecrate the Chinese flag.
!CITE:
1999-63:4
Now another interesting thing about the Chinese and their flag is that we monitor human rights in China. As a matter of fact, the State Department is required to come before the House and the Senate and report to us about the violations of human rights in China. The purpose is to find out whether or not they qualify for full trade with us, and the argument comes up every year. Some say, well, they violate civil rights and human rights all the time; therefore, we should not be trading with Red China, which is an argument that can be presented.
!CITE:
1999-63:5
But in this report that came out in April to summarize last year, our government lists as a violation of human rights that we are holding them accountable for that we want to use against them so that we do not trade with them is the fact that two individuals last year were arrested because they desecrated the Communist Chinese flag.
!CITE:
1999-63:6
I think that is pretty important. We should think about that. First, the Chinese Government makes it illegal to desecrate a flag in Hong Kong, and then they arrest somebody and they convict them, and they want to hold it against them and say we do not want to give them Most Favored Nation status because they are violating somebody’s human rights.
!CITE:
1999-63:7
Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.
!CITE:
1999-63:8
We have existed now for 212 years since the passage of our Constitution, and we have not had laws like this, but all of a sudden we feel compelled. What is the compulsion? Do we see on the nightly news Americans defying our flag and defying our principles of liberty? I cannot recall the last time I saw on television an American citizen burning an American flag or desecrating our flag. So all of a sudden now we decide it is a crisis of such magnitude that we have to amend the Constitution; at the same time, challenging the principles of freedom of expression.
!CITE:
1999-63:9
There is one State in this country that has a law which they have the right to, a law against desecration of the flag. And the flag police went to a house to find out what was going on because they were flying their flag upside down. What is going to happen when we try to define “desecrate”? Desecrate is usually something held for religious symbol. Have we decided to take the flag and make it a holy symbol? But will a towel that is in the shape and the color of a flag that somebody is lying on at the beach, is that going to be a reason to call the FBI and call the flag police in to arrest someone for this desecration? Because we do not define the desecration, we just say we will write the laws to police this type of activity.
!CITE:
1999-63:10
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of expression.
!CITE:
1999-63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.
!CITE:
1999-63:12
Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express one’s religious beliefs. What about one’s property, the right to go in and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.
!CITE:
1999-63:13
It is expected that this will be passed overwhelmingly, and in the Senate possibly as well, and then throughout the country, but I do not see this as a positive step. We here in the Congress should think seriously before we pass this amendment.
!TITLE:
National Identification Card Bad Idea For America
!DATE:
23 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American people strongly oppose the instituting of a national identification card. The authority was given for a national I.D. card in 1996. I have been working very hard to try to repeal this authority.
!CITE:
1999-64:2
Today, we would have had an opportunity under the transportation bill to repeal this authority and to prevent a national I.D. card from coming into existence.
!CITE:
1999-64:3
Unfortunately, that will not be permitted, due to the rule that is coming up for the transportation bill. I think this is a serious mistake. It is not just 30 or 40 or 50 percent of the American people who reject a national I.D., but almost all Americans reject this idea. I find it a shame that we are not able to vote on the repeal authority.
!CITE:
1999-64:4
It was never intended that the Social Security number would be the universal, national identifier. It is given to a child at birth and one cannot even be buried without it. So the national I.D. card, when instituted, will be used for everything: To get on an airplane, to get a job, open up a bank account; whatever we want to do, we will have to show our papers.
!CITE:
1999-64:5
This is un-American. It is something that we should not be doing, and unfortunately, we will not get to vote on it today.
!TITLE:
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
!DATE:
23 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California earlier that said that those of us who oppose this amendment should not be challenged on our patriotism. That certainly should be true. But I do rise in support of the rule because obviously it is constitutional to amend the Constitution; that we cannot object to. But I do have questions about what we are doing to the spirit of America, the spirit of the Constitution in a desire to protect a symbol.
!CITE:
1999-65:2
Not too long ago Hong Kong was taken over by Red China. The very first law that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make it illegal to burn a flag. The first time Hong Kong ever had that law, the British do not have a law like this. Red China, as soon as they took over Hong Kong, they pass a law to make it illegal to burn a flag.
!CITE:
1999-65:3
But it does not stop there. On an annual basis we, the Congress, require the State Department to report to us any human rights violations around the world. The human rights violations in Red China are used specifically to decide whether or not they will get Most Favored Nation status. Last year, in 1998, the report came to the Congress in April of this year, and it reported that indeed there were violations of human rights. What were the human rights violations that we are condemning by this report and we are going to use against the Red Chinese? Two individuals burned the Hong Kong or the Red Chinese flag.
!CITE:
1999-65:4
I think it is just a little bit hypocritical if we want to claim the Red Chinese are violating human rights because somebody there burned the flag at the same time we intend to pass that law here.
!CITE:
1999-65:5
The spirit of the Constitution did not require this. We have had 212 years of our history since the Constitution was passed. We have not had this pass. We have not required this. Where is the epidemic? I cannot remember ever seeing, and of course I am sure it has been on television where an American citizen burned the flag. It must happen; it will happen again. As a matter of fact, it will probably happen more often because there will be more attention given to it once this law is passed.
!CITE:
1999-65:6
Where I see the burning of the American flag, where I get outraged is when the foreigners are doing it because they are so defiant about our policies around the world. But that is a lot different. We are not dealing with that hatred toward America that we are dealing with here.
!CITE:
1999-65:7
We are dealing with a few deranged individuals that were willing to challenge the spirit of the Constitution. They say this is not free speech, but it is indeed expression, just as religion is, just as the study of philosophy is, just as our personal convictions. To say that this is not protected under the Constitution, the current Constitution, I think is quite wrong. I think we do protect that.
!CITE:
1999-65:8
And, yes, one would say this is egregious, this is horrible, to burn this flag. But that is the purpose of the first amendment, to protect obnoxious and uncomfortable speech.
!TITLE:
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
!DATE:
23 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-66:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
!CITE:
1999-66:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. But I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.
!CITE:
1999-66:3
We have not had a law against flag desecration in the 212 years of our constitutional history. So I do not see where it is necessary. We have some misfits on occasion burn the flag, which we all despise. But to now change the ability for some people to express themselves and to challenge the First Amendment, I think we should not do this carelessly.
!CITE:
1999-66:4
Let me just emphasize how the first amendment is written. “Congress shall write no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time. “Congress shall write no laws.”
!CITE:
1999-66:5
We have written a lot of laws since then. But every time we write a law to enforce a law, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government to arrest him and it is done with a gun. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun. So if you are not a patriot, you are assumed not to be a patriot and you are doing this, we will send somebody to arrest them.
!CITE:
1999-66:6
It is assumed that many in the military who fought, but I think the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out aptly that some who have been great heroes in war can be on either side of this issue. I would like to read a quote from a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:
!CITE:
1999-66:7
Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.
!CITE:
1999-66:8
I think that is what we are trying to do. Out of our frustration and exasperation and our feeling of helplessness when we see this happen, we feel like we must do something. But I think most of the time when we see flag burning on television, it is not by American citizens, it is done too often by foreigners who have strong objection to what we do overseas. That is when I see it on television and that is when I get rather annoyed.
!CITE:
1999-66:9
I want to emphasize once again that one of the very first laws that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. The very first law by Red China on Hong Kong was to make sure they had a law on the books like this. Since that time they have prosecuted some individuals. Our State Department tallies this, keeps records of this as a human rights violation, that if they burn the flag, they are violating human rights. Our State Department reports it to our Congress as they did in April of this year and those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not gain most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy here, if they think that this law will do so much good and yet we are so critical of it when Red China does it.
!CITE:
1999-66:10
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. We should not be careless in accepting this approach to enforce a sense of patriotism.
!TITLE:
Drug Asset Forfeiture
!DATE:
24 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substiute as a substitute for amendment the in the nature of a substitute.
!CITE:
1999-67:2
The Clerk read as follows:
!CITE:
1999-67:3
Amendment No. 15 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. PAUL as a substitute for amendment No. 25 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. HUTCHINSON:
!CITE:
1999-67:4
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
!CITE:
1999-67:5
SECTION 1. FORFEITURE CONDITION. No property may be forfeited under any civil asset forfeiture law unless the property’s owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture. The term “civil forfeiture law” refers to any provision of Federal law (other than the Tariff Act of 1930 or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
!CITE:
1999-67:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a substitute amendment for the Hutchinson amendment. My understanding is that the Hyde amendment would improve current situations very much when it comes to seizure and forfeiture, and I strongly endorse the motivation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) in his bill. I have a suggestion in my amendment to make this somewhat better.
!CITE:
1999-67:7
But I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, because not only do I believe that the Hutchinson amendment would undo everything that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) is trying to do, but I sincerely believe that the Hutchinson amendment would make current law worse. I think it is very important that we make a decision here on whether or not we want to continue the effort to build an armed police force out of Washington, D.C.
!CITE:
1999-67:8
The trends have been very negative over the last 20 or 30 years. It has to do a lot with the exuberance we show with our drug laws. I know they are all well-intended, but since 1976, when I recall the first criminal law that we passed here, they always pass nearly unanimously. Everyone is for law and order. But I think this is a perfect example of unintended consequences, the problems that we are dealing with today, because it is not the guilty that suffer. So often it is the innocent who suffer.
!CITE:
1999-67:9
I guess if Members are for a powerful national police and they want to be casual about the civil liberties of innocent people, I imagine they could go along and ruin this bill by passing the Hutchinson amendment.
!CITE:
1999-67:10
I think it is very important to consider another alternative. Mine addresses this, because in spite of how the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) addresses this, which is in a very positive way, I really would like to go one step further. My bill, my substitute amendment, says this: “No property may be forfeited under any Federal civil asset forfeiture law unless the property owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture.”
!CITE:
1999-67:11
Is that too much to ask in America, that we do not take people’s property if they are not even convicted of a crime? That seems to be a rather modest request. That is the way it used to be. We used to never even deal with laws like this at the national level. It is only recently that we decided we had to take away the State’s right and obligation to enforce criminal law.
!CITE:
1999-67:12
I think it is time we thought about going in another direction. That is why I am very, very pleased with this bill on the floor today in moving in this direction. I do not think we should have a nationalized police force. I think that we should be very cautious in everything that we do as we promote law.
!CITE:
1999-67:13
This bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) could be strengthened with my amendment by saying that no forfeiture should occur, but the Hutchinson amendment makes it just the preponderance of evidence that they can take property. This is not right. This is not what America is all about. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but property is being taken from the American people with no charge of crime.
!CITE:
1999-67:14
They lose their property and they never get it back. They cannot afford to fight the courts, and there is a lot of frustration in this country today over this. This is why this bill is on this floor today. I am delighted it is here on this floor.
!CITE:
1999-67:15
I ask people to vote for my amendment, which would even make this better bill, but certainly I think it would be wise not to vote for the Hutchinson amendment to make it much worse. I certainly think that on final passage, we certainly should support the Hyde bill.
!TITLE:
Privacy Project Act
!DATE:
24 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
!CITE:
1999-68:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendments rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!
!CITE:
1999-68:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
!CITE:
1999-68:4
Any member who is reluctant to support this legislation should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people. In fact, I am holding in my hand a letter from almost all citizens’ groups from across the political spectrum, representing thousands of Americans, opposing the plans to implement a national ID.
!CITE:
1999-68:5
Although the Transportation Appropriations bill restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing a final rule regarding this provision, the fact is that unless the House acts this year to repeal the provision, states will begin implementing the law so as to be in compliance with the mandate. Therefore, Congress must repeal Section 656 in order to comply with the Constitution and the wishes of the vast majority of the American people who do not want to be forced to carry a national ID card.
!CITE:
1999-68:6
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Privacy Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
!CITE:
1999-68:7
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES [NCSL]; AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ACLU]; ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER [EPIC]; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA [NCLR]; EAGLE FORUM; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION/COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES; AND AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM

We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge the Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify and display social security numbers on state-issued driver’s licenses and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for driver’s license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of the state driver’s licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been overwhelmingly evidence by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA.
!CITE:
1999-68:8
THE LAW IS COUNTER-DEVOLUTIONARY, PREEMPTIVE AND VIOLATES THE UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT
!CITE:
1999-68:9
The law and the proposed regulation run counter to devolution. The law preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver’s licenses and places it in the hands of officials at NHTSA while imposing tremendous costs on the states that have been vastly underestimated in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The actual cost of compliance with the law and the regulation far exceeds the $100 million threshold established by UMRA. In addition, the law and proposed regulation require states to conform their drivers’ licenses and other identity documents to a detailed federal standard. Proposals for a national ID have been consistently rejected in the United States as an infringement of personal liberty.
!CITE:
1999-68:10
THE LAW RAISES SERIOUS PRIVACY CONCERNS
!CITE:
1999-68:11
The law raises a number of privacy concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of the Social Security Number (SSN), the creation of a national ID cared, and the violation of federal rules of privacy. The law and proposed rule require that each license contain either in visual or electronic form the individual’s SSN unless the state goes through burdensome and invasive procedures to check each individuals’s identify with the Social Security Administration. This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of the SSN at a time that Congress; the states, and the public are actively working to limit its dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy. Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of SSNs as the driver’s identify number. Only a few states currently require the SSN to be used as an identifier on their driver’s licenses.
!CITE:
1999-68:12
While the impact of Section 656 may not been fully comprehended in 1996, we urge the Congress now to act swiftly to repeal this provision of law that has been challenged by many diverse groups. If you or your staff have any further questions, please contact Dawn Levy of the National Conference of State Legislatures at (202) 624–8687.
!TITLE:
Child Custody Protection Act
!DATE:
30 June 1999
!CITE:
1999-69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
!CITE:
1999-69:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime.
!CITE:
1999-69:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
!CITE:
1999-69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
!CITE:
1999-69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1999-69:6
Most recently, we have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist stated in his year-end report “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
!CITE:
1999-69:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
!CITE:
1999-69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
!CITE:
1999-69:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
!CITE:
1999-69:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 1218.
!TITLE:
“Know Your Customer” Rules
!DATE:
1 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I am known to be very concerned about the privacy of all Americans and am tenacious in protecting the privacy of everyone.
!CITE:
1999-70:2
I believe I am a well-known civil libertarian. But I do believe this bill adequately protects privacy, except in one area. It has not eliminated the potential Know Your Customer regulations. My amendment permits this. It is the regulations such as Know Your Customer that is the motivation for banks to collect so much information.
!CITE:
1999-70:3
So I rise in support of the rule, but also mention that the Paul-Campbell–Barr amendment will allow us to bring to the floor an amendment that will eliminate once and for all the availability of Know Your Customer regulations by the various regulators.
!CITE:
1999-70:4
I am in strong support of this rule, believing very sincerely this bill does protect privacy. But we can make it better by passing my amendment.
!TITLE:
Improving Privacy
!DATE:
1 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-71:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I will take my one minute to address the subject of privacy, because I do have an amendment that I think would improve the protection of privacy.
!CITE:
1999-71:2
We have had a lot of talk and indication on this side of the aisle about protecting privacy. But I believe the understanding of what our role is in protecting privacy, if it applied across the board, would mean that politicians and political action committees could never rent a list from the Sierra club or the American Civil Liberties Union.
!CITE:
1999-71:3
But I am addressing the subject of Know Your Customer. At the same time we hear these declarations for protection of privacy, we hear from the same people that we cannot get rid of Know Your Customer.
!CITE:
1999-71:4
Now, if one wants to really find something where one invades the privacy of the individual citizen, it is this notion that the Federal Government would dictate a profiling of every bank customer in this country; and then, if that customer varied its financial activities at any time, it could be reported to the various agencies of the Federal Government. Now, that is privacy. That is what we have to stop. I ask for support for my amendment.
!TITLE:
“Know Your Customer” Rules
!DATE:
1 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-72:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) for yielding this time to me.
!CITE:
1999-72:2
Madam Chairman, if my colleagues are opposed to Know Your Customer regulations they must support this amendment because this does away with Know Your Customer regulations, the profiling of every single customer in this country. This notion that it is going to ruin law enforcement is just not valid. There is estimated $100 million cost for one conviction by the reports that are sent in, and this does not prohibit the banks from sending in reports. If there is a suspicious character, they can still do this.
!CITE:
1999-72:3
So it will not hinder law enforcement.
!CITE:
1999-72:4
What it does, Madam Chairman: It protects the consumer, it protects the citizen, it protects the right of all Americans. We cannot rationalize and justify the abuse of liberty for the pretense that on occasion we might catch a criminal. But the fact that it could cost $100 million per conviction is sort of what I would call overkill.
!CITE:
1999-72:5
What we must do is protect the American citizen. Law enforcement will not be hindered. If my colleagues are opposed to Know Your Customer regulation, they must vote for this amendment.
!TITLE:
Salute To The City Of Yoakum, Texas
!DATE:
13 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-73:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the City of Yoakum, Texas, which will celebrate its 112th birthday on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, with a festival at the city’s Heritage Museum.
!CITE:
1999-73:2
Yoakum is located partially in western Lavaca County and partially in eastern DeWitt County. Today, the city is known as the “Leather Capital of the World,” due primarily to the economic impact of 12 leather goods manufacturing firms and some 16 factory locations in Yoakum.
!CITE:
1999-73:3
In its early years, Anglo-Americans used Yoakum as a gathering site for thousands of bawling Texas Longhorns that were grouped into cattle drives and driven along the Chisolm Trail to market. Yoakum’s townsite was established in 1887 with the arrival of the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railroad — the railroad of Yoakum’s history.
!CITE:
1999-73:4
Once, Yoakum was the “Green Wrap” tomato capita of the world and still commemorates this heritage with the annual “Tom Tom Festival.” As that industry faded, the community leaders — namely Mr. C. C. Welhausen — fostered the idea that Yoakum needed another industry as a base to its economy. The result: a leather industry era that now employs some 1,500 and produces millions of dollars of the Yoakum area economy.
!CITE:
1999-73:5
Beef production is also huge in Yoakum, and both Lavaca and DeWitt Counties rank in the top five counties in the State of Texas in cow-calf operations. A true cowboy culture exists in the Yoakum area due to the thousands of head of cattle grown on area ranches.
!CITE:
1999-73:6
I am proud to represent a city so full of rich, Texas heritage. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me sending happy birthday wishes to the City of Yoakum, Texas.
!TITLE:
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
!DATE:
15 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule but in opposition to the bill.
!CITE:
1999-74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.
!CITE:
1999-74:3
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress and requires Congress to define government policy and select the means by which that policy is to be implemented. Congress, in allowing religious free exercise to be infringed using the least restrictive means whenever government pleads a compelling interest without defining either what constitutes least restrictive or compelling interest delegates, to the courts legislative powers to make these policy choices constitutionally reserved to the elected body.
!CITE:
1999-74:4
Nowhere does H.R. 1691 purport to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment as applied to the States. Rather, its design imposes a national uniform standard of religious liberty protected beyond that allowed under the United States Constitution, thereby intruding upon the powers of the State to establish their own policies governing protection of religious liberty as preserved under the tenth amendment. The interstate commerce clause was never intended to be used to set such standards for the entire Nation.
!CITE:
1999-74:5
Admittedly, instances of State government infringement of religious exercise can be found in various forms and in various States, most of which, however, occur in government-operated schools, prisons and so-called government enterprises and as a consequence of Federal Government programs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that religious liberty will be somehow better protected by enacting national terms of infringement, a national infringement standard which is ill-defined by a Federal legislature and further defined by Federal courts, both of which are remote from those whose rights are likely to be infringed.
!CITE:
1999-74:6
If one admires the Federal government’s handling of the abortion question, one will have to wait with even greater anticipation to witness the Federal government’s handiwork with respect to religious liberty.
!CITE:
1999-74:7
To the extent governments continue to expand the breadth and depth of their reach into those functions formally assumed by private entities, governments will continue to be caught in a hopeless paradox where intolerance of religious exercise in government facilities is argued to constitute establishment and, similarly, restrictions of religious exercise constitute infringement.
!CITE:
1999-74:8
Mr. Speaker, our Nation does not need an unconstitutional Federal standard of religious freedom. We need instead for government, including the courts, to respect its existing constitutional limitations so we can have true religious liberty.
!TITLE:
Mail Receiving Agencies
!DATE:
15 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some bit of ambivalence with this rule, but I will support the rule. I was concerned about a special issue with the Post Office and was hoping that we could address this in detail, and that has to do with the regulations that I consider very onerous and very maliciously placed on private mailboxes, the Commercial Receiving Agencies. I was very hopeful that we could deal with that. But it appears we will have another chance to do that at a later date.
!CITE:
1999-75:2
I have a House joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act, H.J. Res. 55. If that were to pass, we could rescind all those regulations. Currently, it is my understanding that these regulations have been put on hold. They will not go into effect soon. But the problem still exists, and I see it as a serious problem.
!CITE:
1999-75:3
First, let me talk about the Post Office. The Post Office is a true monopoly. In the free market, there are no true monopolies. Only government can allow a true monopoly.
!CITE:
1999-75:4
We do have enough freedom in this country to some degree to offer competition to even this monopoly of the Post Office. By doing this, the private post offices have been set up to give additional service and privacy to many of our citizens, and they are well used.
!CITE:
1999-75:5
But now the Post Office sees this as a competition because they are providing services that the Post Office cannot or will not provide. So instead of dealing with this, either providing legalized competition in the Post Office or providing these same services, instead, the Post Office has issued these onerous regulations to attack these customers.
!CITE:
1999-75:6
They are forcing these private mailbox operators to develop profiles on every customer, have double identification, and then make this information available to the public and to the Post Office for no good reason.
!CITE:
1999-75:7
When I first got involved in this, I did not know which constituencies would be interested in this issue. But one thing that I have discovered is that many of those women who need privacy will use private post offices to avoid the husband or some other individual who may be stalking them. They have been writing to me with a great deal of concern about what these regulations will do.
!CITE:
1999-75:8
Also, it is a great cost to these operators as well as to all the customers. The Post Office would mandate that a special address be placed on each piece of mail, indicating that they are receiving mail at one of these private post offices. This costs a lot of money. There will be a lot of mail returned. If these regulations had gone into effect this week, as had been planned, a lot of mail, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pieces, if not millions, would have been returned to the senders, and they would not have been permitted to be delivered.
!CITE:
1999-75:9
I think this is tragic. I think it has to be dealt with. I am disappointed that we cannot do much with it today, but I know there is a growing support in this country and in this Chamber for doing something about this problem.
!CITE:
1999-75:10
We as a Congress have the ability, and the authority, to undo regulations. For too long, we have allowed our regulatory bodies to write law, and we do nothing about it. Since 1994, we have had this authority, but we never use it. This is a perfect example of a time that we ought to come in and protect the people, try to neutralize this government monopoly and help these people who deserve this type of protection and privacy.
!CITE:
1999-75:11
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I think he raises the question that is a good question; and it should be raised, should be looked at.

It will not come as a surprise to him that we do not agree on all the aspects of what he has said, but he certainly raises an issue that ought to be focused on. I know in talking to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman KOLBE) that he shares that concern. I want to assure the gentleman that both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) and myself will be looking at this.

Furthermore, as the gentleman may know, the Postal Department has made very substantial changes to its initially sponsored resolution through the efforts of the organizations that the gentleman from Texas talked to and himself and others who raised these issues with the department, so that they are moving to ensure greater privacy and protection to the individuals of which the gentleman spoke.

The gentleman from Texas raises a legitimate issue. I certainly intend to, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE), look at that further. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
!CITE:
1999-75:12
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland.
!TITLE:
Exchange Stabilization Fund
!DATE:
15 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-76:1
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.)
!CITE:
1999-76:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) for bringing this amendment to the floor.
!CITE:
1999-76:3
I would like to clarify one thing about the original intent of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It was never meant to be used to support foreign currencies. It should not be so casually accepted that that is the proper function of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
!CITE:
1999-76:4
The Exchange Stabilization Fund was set up, I think in error; but it was set up for the purpose of stabilizing the dollar in the Depression. How did that come about? Well, it started with an Executive order. It started with an Executive order to take gold forcefully from the people. And then our President then revalued gold from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce, and there was a profit and they took this profit and used some of those profits to start the Exchange Stabilization Fund. They set it up with $200 million. It does not seem like a whole lot of money today. How did it come about over these many years that this fund has been allowed to exist without supervision of this Congress, and now has reached to the size of $34 billion and we give it no oversight? It is supposed to send reports to us, very superficial reports to the Congress. We don’t know how they got $34 billion. They earned interest on some of the loans, and all the loans are paid back because the countries who get the loans borrow more money.
!CITE:
1999-76:5
Mr. Chairman, the Mexico bailout did not solve the Mexico problem. It is ongoing. The peso is in trouble again. They are in more debt than before. We only encourage the financial bubble around the world. This is a dangerous notion that we can take something that was set up to stabilize the dollar, and now we are pretending we can stabilize all the currencies in the world and use it as foreign aid to boot without the congressional approval. There is something seriously flawed with this.
!CITE:
1999-76:6
It has also been suggested by many who know a lot more about the details of the Exchange Stabilization Fund than I do, and it has been suggested that possibly, quite possibly, what happens is Treasury deals in currencies all the time and there are profits to be made. And when there is a profit, it goes into the Exchange Stabilization Fund. When there is a loss. It is sent over to the Treasury and then recorded as a loss.
!CITE:
1999-76:7
This is a magnificent thing, but in a free society, in a democracy, in a republic where we are supposed to have the rule of law, we are not supposed to have a slush fund that is run by our Treasury without supervision to be doing things that was never intended. This is a serious problem. And I think economically it is serious because it is contributing to the bubble. It is contributing to a financial bubble.
!CITE:
1999-76:8
So, yes, we tide Mexico over for a year or two, but what are we going to say next year when there is another peso crisis? Are we going to close our eyes and say we will do whatever we want, it is a major crisis? Our obligation here in the Congress is to have a sound dollar, not to dilute the value of the dollar without our permission and for our President and our Treasury Department and the IMF and the World Bank and the internationalists to destroy the value of the dollar. That is not permissible under the rule of law, and yet we have casually permitted this to happen and we do not even ask the serious questions.
!CITE:
1999-76:9
We should make it certain that all loans, all use of that is reviewed by the Congress. This is a very, very modest request by the gentleman from Vermont. It should be absolutely approved. But then some day we ought to give a serious study about how we as a Congress allow these kind of things to happen without our supervision.
!CITE:
1999-76:10
What is the purpose of having a Congress? What is the purpose of the Constitution if we have an obligation to guarantee the value of the dollar and if we permit somebody not under our control to do whatever they want to the dollar under the pretense that we are going to protect the value of all the currencies of Asia?
!CITE:
1999-76:11
Mr. Chairman, are we going to protect the Euro now? The Euro is getting pretty weak. I guess we are going to bail out the Euro. When it drops down under a dollar, we will expect the Exchange Stabilization Fund to come and bail out the Euro. This has to be looked at. This is the first very modest, very minimal step that we are making tonight. It should be overwhelmingly supported.
!CITE:
1999-76:12
It is up to us to assume our responsibility to protect the dollar, have the rule of law, make sure that we assume the responsibilities that have been delegated to us and not close our eyes and let this slush fund of $34 billion that has existed for now these many decades and have allowed the Treasury Department to run it without us caring. So I plead with my colleagues, support the amendment.
!TITLE:
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
!DATE:
16 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, once again Congress demonstrates that it has no fundamental understanding of free trade or the best interests of the taxpayer. The Africa Growth & Opportunity Act is heavy-laden with the Development Assistance (foreign aid), debt forgiveness (so much for the balanced budget), OPIC expansion (thus putting the taxpayers further at risk), and of course a new international regulatory board to be funded with “such sums as may be necessary.” Additionally, the costs of this bill are paid by raising taxes on charity. Free trade, Washington style, is evidently not free for the taxpayer!
!CITE:
1999-77:2
So what exactly is “free trade” and how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will become more favorable by “default.”
!CITE:
1999-77:3
Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of firm-or-industry-benefitting protectionism or another, my “trade free of intervention” definition of free trade is currently quite out of favor with beltway-dominant pundits. Such wrongheaded thinking is not limited to government. In academia, a widely-used undergraduate economics text, authorized by David C. Colander, describes a “free trade association” as a “group of countries that allows free trade among its members and puts up common barriers against all other countries’ goods” — thus here we have free trade associations putting up barriers. (An economic textbook only Orwell could love.)
!CITE:
1999-77:4
An example of what now constitutes “free trade” Washington style can be found within the US ENGAGE Congressional Scorecard. It is insightful to consider what USA ENGAGE regards as pro-free trade against the backdrop of the non-interventionist notion of free trade outlined above.
!CITE:
1999-77:5
China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S. citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with trade.
!CITE:
1999-77:6
The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a pro-free trade position is particularly indicative, however, of what now constitutes free trade in the alleged minds of the beltway elite. When government forces through taxation, citizens to forego consumption of their own choosing (in other words forego voluntary exchanges) so that government can send money to foreign entities (i.e. trade promotion), this in the mind of Washington insiders constitutes “free trade.” In other words, when demand curves facing the corporate elite are less than those desired, government’s help is then enlisted to shift the demand curve by forcing taxpayers to send money to various government and private entities whose spending patterns more favorably reflect those desired by those “engineering” such “free trade” policies in Washington. Much like tax cuts being a “cost to government” and “free trade associations” whose purpose it is to erect barriers, free trade has become government-coerced, taxpayer-financed foreign aid designed to result in specific private spending and private gains.
!CITE:
1999-77:7
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE’s Congressional scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The fast-track procedure bill sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, kinder “welfarist” form of protectionism), and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today’s legislative mishap, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from those corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable international trade agreements.
!CITE:
1999-77:8
Constitutional questions aside, like today’s H.R. 434, the fast track bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D.:
!CITE:
1999-77:9
[Genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
!CITE:
1999-77:10
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fan-fare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. The mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers — be they domestic or foreign.
!CITE:
1999-77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
!CITE:
1999-77:12
The harmonization language in the last Congress’ Food and Drug Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
!CITE:
1999-77:13
The late economist Ludwig von Mises argued there is a choice of only two economic systems — capitalism or socialism. Intervention, he would say, always begets more interventionism to address the negative consequences of the prior intervention: thus, necessarily leading to yet further intervention until complete socialism is the only possible outcome. This principle remains true even in the case of intervention and free trade.
!CITE:
1999-77:14
To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to “capture” the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers’ only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers’ after-tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of “free trade” espoused by the international trade organizations whose purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and captured to do the equivalent task domestically.
!CITE:
1999-77:15
Until policy makers can learn enough about trade and voluntary exchange to distinguish them from taxpayer-funded aid to bolster corporate revenues, OPIC, Export-Import funding, Market Access Program, and other forms of market intervention (each of which are quite the opposite of genuine free trade), the free trade discussion will remain at worst, a delusional discussion, and, at best, a hollow one.
!CITE:
1999-77:16
For these reasons and others, I oppose the so-called free-trade-enhancing Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
!TITLE:
On The United Nations And Embassy Security
!DATE:
19 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
!CITE:
1999-78:2
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the authorizations in section 106 for all U.N.-related operations. We have a bill here tonight dealing with embassy security, U.S. embassy security, and we are all very concerned about it.
!CITE:
1999-78:3
But in typical fashion, about all we have been offered so far has been just to put more money into our embassies and never raising the question about why our embassies might be more vulnerable. My amendment deals with that, because I would like to deal with the foreign policy involved with our commitment to the United Nations.
!CITE:
1999-78:4
There are many in this Congress who readily admit they are internationalists. I readily admit that I am not an internationalist when it comes to political action and warmongering. Therefore, I think much of what we do in foreign policy makes ourselves more vulnerable. If we look at the two most recent bombings in Africa, these were brought about by our own foreign policy.
!CITE:
1999-78:5
Those supporters of internationalism generally accuse those of us who are opposed to it by saying that we are isolationists. This is not true. I am not an isolationist. But I do believe in national sovereignty. I happen to sincerely believe that one cannot become an endorser of some form of internationalism without some sacrifice of our own sovereignty. I think this is the subject that we must address.
!CITE:
1999-78:6
I believe in free trade. I do not believe in protectionism. I am not a protectionist. I think people, goods, and services and ideas should flow across borders freely. But when it comes to our armaments, under the guise of the U.N. orders or NATO orders, I do not believe this should be called something favorably as internationalism and those who oppose that as being isolationists.
!CITE:
1999-78:7
I object to imposing our will on other people. I believe this is what we so often do. When we do that, we build hatreds around the world. That is why our embassies are less secure than many other nations. This is why we are bombed. We bomb Iraq endlessly. No wonder they hate us.
!CITE:
1999-78:8
Iran right now, they have dissidents in the street; but they are blaming America, because there was a time when we put our dictator in charge of Iran as we have done so often around the world. Yet they only can come back by making our embassies vulnerable. It might be wiser for those countries that we cannot protect our embassies to put in a computerized operation because, in this day and age, we do not have to have embassies in the countries that are so dangerous.
!CITE:
1999-78:9
But it is not the lack of security that is the problem, it is our type of policy that prompts the hatred toward America. I suggest we should look at some of this U.N. activity.
!TITLE:
On The United Nations And Embassy security
!DATE:
19 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
!CITE:
1999-79:2
Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the imperfections of the United Nations. I am addressing the imperfection of our policy with the United Nations, which is a lot different.
!CITE:
1999-79:3
We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we did, we just totally ignored it.
!CITE:
1999-79:4
We invaded a sovereign nation. We did not abide by the rules of the United Nations. Then when we needed rescue from our policy, then we go limping to the United Nations to come in and please save our policy in Kosovo.
!CITE:
1999-79:5
That is what I object to. I think that we should not renege and turn over our sovereignty to these international bodies. I believe there is motivation for this. When our commercial interests and financial interests are at stake, yes, we do get involved in the Persian Gulf; yes, we do get involved in Eastern Europe. But do we get involved in Rwanda? No, we do not. We ignore it.
!CITE:
1999-79:6
So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to.
!CITE:
1999-79:7
Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless, and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our sovereignty to these international parties.
!CITE:
1999-79:8
Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty.
!TITLE:
Demanding Recorded Vote
!DATE:
19 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-80:1

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
!CITE:
1999-80:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
!TITLE:
Teacher Empowerment Act
!DATE:
20 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to express my opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act (H.R. 1995). Although H.R. 1995 does provide more flexibility to states than the current system or the Administration’s proposal, it comes at the expense of increasing federal spending on education. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if Congress appropriates the full amount authorized in the bill, additional outlays would be $83 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $6.9 billion over five years.
!CITE:
1999-81:2
H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The most important feature of the bill is the provision forbidding the use of federal funds for mandatory national teacher testing or teacher certification. National teacher testing or national teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, all those who oppose a national curriculum should oppose national teacher testing. I commend Chairman GOODLING and Chairman MCKEON for their continued commitment to fighting a national curriculum.
!CITE:
1999-81:3
Furthermore, this bill provides increased ability for state and local governments to determine how best to use federal funds. However, no one should confuse this with true federalism or even a repudiation of the modern view of state and local governments as administrative agencies of the Federal Government. After all, the very existence of a federal program designed to “help” states train teachers limits a state’s ability to set education priorities since every dollar taken in federal taxes to fund federal teacher training programs is a dollar a state cannot use to purchase new textbooks or computers for students. This bill also dictates how much money the states may keep versus how much must be sent to the local level and limits the state government’s use of the funds to activities approved by Congress.
!CITE:
1999-81:4
In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of “proven, innovative strategies” to improve professional development — I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their “innovative strategy” did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide by its constitutional limits.
!CITE:
1999-81:5
Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to the students — not by state or federal bureaucrats. Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local education officials.
!CITE:
1999-81:6
Furthermore, this bill requires localities to use a certain percentage of their funds to meet the professional development needs of math and science teachers. As an OB–GYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers, however, for Congress to require local education agencies to devote a disproportionate share of resources to one particular group of teachers is a form of central planning — directing resources into those areas valued by the central planners, regardless of the diverse needs of the people. Not every school district in the country has the same demand for math and science teachers. There may be some local school districts that want to devote more resources to English teachers or foreign language instructors. Some local schools districts may even want to devote their resources to provide quality history and civics teachers so they will not produce another generation of constitutionally-illiterate politicians!
!CITE:
1999-81:7
In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!”
!CITE:
1999-81:8
In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, decentralized education systems are much more effective then centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and students.
!CITE:
1999-81:9
In order to put the American people back in charge of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935) which provides parents with a $3,000 tax credit for K–12 education expenses and the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides all citizens with a $3,000 tax credit for contributions to K–12 scholarships and for cash or in-kind donations to schools. I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act, which encourages good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession by providing teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. By returning control of the education dollar to parents and concerned citizens, my education package does more to improve education quality than any other proposal in Congress.
!CITE:
1999-81:10
Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to America’s parents, teachers, and students.
!TITLE:
Free Trade
!DATE:
27 July 1999
!CITE:
1999-82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of free trade.
!CITE:
1999-82:2
Mr. Speaker, the reason a country engages in free trade is not altruism — we do not encourage trade and low tariffs for the benefit of a trading partner. Even if the reciprocal country does not lower its tariffs we can still benefit.
!CITE:
1999-82:3
Open and free trade with all nations, short of war, should be pursued for two specific reasons. One, it’s a freedom issue; the right of the citizens of a free country to spend their money any way they see fit, anywhere in the world. And two, free trade provides the best deal for consumers allowing each to cast dollar votes with each purchase respecting quality and price. The foreign competition is a blessing in that it challenges domestic industries to do better. The Japanese car industry certainly resulted in American car manufacturers offering more competitive products.
!CITE:
1999-82:4
In setting trade policy we must not assume that it is our job to solve any internal political problems of our trading partners any more than it is their responsibility to deal with our internal shortcomings.
!CITE:
1999-82:5
Our biggest problem here in the Congress is that we seemingly never have a chance to vote for genuine free trade. The choice is almost always between managed-plus-subsidized trade or sanctions-plus-protectionism. Our careless use of language (most likely deliberate) is deceitful.
!CITE:
1999-82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply” — a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.
!CITE:
1999-82:7
Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another.
!CITE:
1999-82:8
If all trade subsidies are eliminated, there is less temptation on our part to impose conditions on others receiving our grants and loans.
!CITE:
1999-82:9
Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments.
!CITE:
1999-82:10
Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries.
!CITE:
1999-82:11
I look forward to the day that our trade debate may advance from the rhetoric of managed trade versus protectionism to that of true free trade, without subsidies or WTO-like management; or better yet, free trade with an internationally accepted monetary unit recognizing the fallacy of mismanaged fiat currencies.
!TITLE:
OPIC
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. If it were true that this agency is profitable, we would not be here. They would be making profit, and OPIC would not need to come here every year.
!CITE:
1999-83:2
They are asking for $55 million. Where does the profit come from? It was stated earlier very clearly; from the interest they earn. They have a portfolio of $3 billion of U.S. securities.
!CITE:
1999-83:3
But these did not reduce the national debt. That is part of the national debt. We pay interest on that $3 billion. And this agency gets $194 million from it, four times the amount of the requested appropriation.
!CITE:
1999-83:4
No wonder on paper it looks profitable. And they say, well, the private companies will not insure some of these projects. That means it is probably risky. Why should the taxpayer assume the risk? Why should these corporations be protected with this corporate welfare?
!CITE:
1999-83:5
This is the reason why jobs are exported at a cost to the American taxpayer. It is bad economics. And it is a lot of twisting of the facts if we call this agency profitable at the same time they are getting $194 million that we barely talk about.
!CITE:
1999-83:6
How many other agencies of government get interest like this? This is almost a government unto itself, the fact that it has that much financing without even a direct appropriation because it is paid out of the interest budget.
!CITE:
1999-83:7
This is indeed a very important amendment. I believe that we should definitely vote for this. If we care at all about the taxpayer of this country, we should expose what is happening with corporate welfare.
!CITE:
1999-83:8
The little people are not coming to us today begging us to vote against this amendment. It is the corporations, the giant corporations, not our small mom-and-pop businesses. They are not coming and saying, please, please protect OPIC. No, it is the giant corporations that have been able to manipulate and get benefits from programs like this.
!TITLE:
Population Control
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
!CITE:
1999-84:2
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.
!CITE:
1999-84:3
Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment.
!CITE:
1999-84:4
Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut.
!CITE:
1999-84:5
I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country.
!CITE:
1999-84:6
Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause.
!CITE:
1999-84:7
So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.” “Appropriations contained in this act,” the report says, “are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.”
!CITE:
1999-84:8
That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be.
!CITE:
1999-84:9
So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.
!TITLE:
Fungible Birth Control Funds
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1999-85:2
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything.
!CITE:
1999-85:3
This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years.
!CITE:
1999-85:4
So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them around and there is a real thing called fungibility.
!CITE:
1999-85:5
So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our standards on them.
!CITE:
1999-85:6
Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and Depo-Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control pill. These are not benign.
!CITE:
1999-85:7
And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done.
!CITE:
1999-85:8
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign countries and impose our will on them.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
!CITE:
1999-85:9
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
!TITLE:
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 116, after line 5, insert the following:

LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AND THE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

SEC. . None of the funds made available pursuant to this Act for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency, may be used to enter into any new obligation, guarantee, or agreement on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) each will control 5 minutes.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
!CITE:
1999-86:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1999-86:3
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export-Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our foreign competitors.
!CITE:
1999-86:4
China, for instance, receives the largest amount of money from the Export-Import Bank. Outstanding liabilities for the Export-Import Bank is now $55 billion. There is $5.9 billion that have been granted to the Chinese.
!CITE:
1999-86:5
Last week we had a very important vote on trade. It was hotly debated over human rights issues. I voted to trade with China because I believe it is proper to trade with people. We are less likely to fight with them. And in this institution, too often we use our terms carelessly and we talk about free trade as being something which is managed trade. Free trade here generally means that we will have the NAFTA people managing trade, the World Trade Organization managing trade, and we will subsidize our businesses.
!CITE:
1999-86:6
Just this past week we had the World Trade Organization rule against us saying that we grant $2 billion worth of tax benefits to our own corporations and they ruled that that was illegal. This is all done in the name of free trade.
!CITE:
1999-86:7
I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. But this is the time to do something about it.
!CITE:
1999-86:8
Trading with Red China under true free trade is a benefit to both of us. It is a benefit to our consumers and it benefits both countries because we are talking with people and we are not fighting with them. But it gets to be a serious problem when we tax our people in order to benefit those who are receiving the goods overseas.
!CITE:
1999-86:9
Now, if there is a worldwide downturn, this $55 billion of liabilities out there could be very significant in how it is going to be paid back. The Chinese right now, their economy is not all that healthy. They are talking about a devaluation.
!CITE:
1999-86:10
So this is a liability that the American taxpayers are exposed to. If we do have a concern about Red China and the Chinese, yes, let us work with them, let us trade with them, but let us not subsidize them.
!CITE:
1999-86:11
This is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop this type of subsidies. So my bill, my amendment would stop any new obligation. It does not close down Export-Import Bank. It allows all the old loans to operate and function, but no new obligations can be made, no new guaranties, and no agreement, with the idea that someday we may truly move to free trade, that we do not recognize free trade as being subsidized trade as well as internationally managed trade with organizations such as NAFTA and World Trade Organization.
!CITE:
1999-86:12
Those institutions are not free trade institutions. They are managed trade institutions for the benefit of special interests. That is what this type of funding is for is for the benefit of special interests, whether it is our domestic corporation, which, indeed, I would recognize does receive some benefit.
!CITE:
1999-86:13
Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have their defenders here.
!CITE:
1999-86:14
It is time we look carefully at these subsidies.
!TITLE:
Foreign Subsidies
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
!CITE:
1999-87:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not really quite in the free market yet.
!CITE:
1999-87:3
But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) points out that, no, that is not true. The money does not go to Red China and they buy things; we just give it directly. We do not even send it round trip. This is true.
!CITE:
1999-87:4
We take taxpayers’ money. We take taxpayers’ guarantee. We give them to those huge five corporations that do 67 percent of the business. We give them the money. But where do the goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese.
!CITE:
1999-87:5
So, technically, yes, we do not send the money there. But who is going to pay it back? The Chinese pays the loan back. If they default, who pays the bill if the Chinese defaults? Who pays the bill if they default? It is obviously the taxpayers.
!CITE:
1999-87:6
What I am pointing out is that $5.9 billion that the Chinese now had borrowed from us, from the Export-Import Bank, is a significant obligation that, too, is on the backs of the American taxpayer.
!CITE:
1999-87:7
So I urge support for the amendment because, if we are serious about free trade, just please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest trade. But please do not call it free trade anymore, because it is not free trade.
!CITE:
1999-87:8
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
!TITLE:
Demanding Recorded Vote
!DATE:
2 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.
!TITLE:
Selective Service System
!DATE:
5 August 1999
!CITE:
1999-89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
!CITE:
1999-89:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this rule. It is a fair rule. There is plenty of room for debate and room for amendment.
!CITE:
1999-89:3
I would like to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations for doing something very important in this bill by deleting all the funding for the Selective Service System. I think that is very important.
!CITE:
1999-89:4
As was described by the gentlewoman earlier, there will be an attempt early on. The first amendment that will come to the floor will be to put that money back in.
!CITE:
1999-89:5
I would like my colleagues to consider very seriously not to do that, because there is no need for the Selective Service System. There is only one purpose for the Selective Service System. That is to draft young 18-year-olds. That is unfair.
!CITE:
1999-89:6
There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay to get their way out.
!CITE:
1999-89:7
The draft is a 20th century phenomenon, and I am delighted to see and very pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to delete this money because this, to me, is reestablishing one of the American traditions, that we do not believe in conscription. Conscription and drafting is a totalitarian idea.
!CITE:
1999-89:8
I would like to remind many of my conservative colleagues that, if we brought a bill to this floor where we would say that we would register all of our guns in the United States, there would be a hue and cry about how horrible it would be. Yet, we casually accept this program of registering 18-year-old kids to force them to go and fight the political wars that they are not interested in. This is a very, very serious idea and principle of liberty.
!CITE:
1999-89:9
So when the time comes in September to vote for this, I beg that my fellow colleagues will think seriously about this, the needlessness to spend $25 million to continue to register young people to go off to fight needless wars. They are not even permitted to drink beer; and, yet, we expect them to be registered and to use them to fight the wars that the older generation starts for political and narrow-minded reasons.
!CITE:
1999-89:10
So when the time comes in September, please consider that there are ways that one can provide for an army without conscription. We have had the reinstitution of registration of the draft for 20 years. It has been wasted money. We can save the $25 million. We should do it. We should not put this money back in. We do not need the Selective Service System.
!TITLE:
The Appropriation For The Selective Service System Should Not Be Reinstated
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-90:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, later today we will be dealing with the VA HUD bill; and I want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. There will be an attempt to put that money back into the bill. I think that is a serious mistake.
!CITE:
1999-90:2
The military has not asked for the selective service to continue. We do not need it. It is a serious abuse of civil liberties of all 18- and 19-year-old to continue this registration. The registration is totally unnecessary. This $24.5 million could be better spent on veterans’ affairs or some other worthy cause, but to put the money back in is a serious mistake.
!CITE:
1999-90:3
I would like to remind my conservative colleagues that Ronald Reagan had a very strong position on the draft and selective service. He agreed that it was a totalitarian notion to conscript young people and strongly spoke out against the draft whenever he had the opportunity.
!CITE:
1999-90:4
I also would like to remind my conservative colleagues that if somebody came to the House floor and asked that we register all the guns of America, there would be a hue and cry about why this would be unconstitutional and unfair, and yet they are quite willing to register their 18- and 19-year-olds. I do not understand why there is less respect given for 18- and 19-year-olds than they give for their own guns.
!CITE:
1999-90:5
I strongly urge that we not fund the selective service system today.
!TITLE:
Selective Service System
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH) for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1999-91:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. That was a good move. To me it was a heroic step in the direction of more liberty for the individual.
!CITE:
1999-91:3
There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service.
!CITE:
1999-91:4
Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.
!TITLE:
Selective Service System
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
!CITE:
1999-92:2
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to address this amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), for deleting these funds, in this bill.
!CITE:
1999-92:3
This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money.
!CITE:
1999-92:4
More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state.
!CITE:
1999-92:5
That is what the registration is all about. I have a young grandson that had to register not too long ago, and he came to me and said, You know, “they sent me a notice that I better go register. Why do I have to register, if they already know where I am and how old I am?” That is the case. The purpose of registration is nothing more than putting an emphasis on the fact that the state owns all 18-year-olds.
!CITE:
1999-92:6
The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die.
!CITE:
1999-92:7
The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the draft is it is so unfair.
!CITE:
1999-92:8
Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to believe it is never necessary to violate somebody’s liberty, but let us say there is a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft.
!CITE:
1999-92:9
There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the deferments. They cannot avoid it.
!CITE:
1999-92:10
It is very important that we consider not only this vote on fiscal reasons and where we are taking the money. Quite frankly, I would much rather see this money stay in the programs where, as a fiscal conservative, I would not have otherwise voted for those funds nay. But any funding of that sort is so much better on principle than voting to perpetuate a system that has no purpose other than to conscript.
!CITE:
1999-92:11
Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot survive, and probably does not deserve to.
!CITE:
1999-92:12
A free society that depends on the vicious totalitarian principle of conscription is, by its very nature, no longer free.
!CITE:
1999-92:13
We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the appropriations for the Selective Service System.
!CITE:
1999-92:14
There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one’s belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government.
!CITE:
1999-92:15
Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and international warmongers.
!TITLE:
Consistency In Voting
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!CITE:
1999-93:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has called attention to my voting record. I would say that if I could show the gentleman that I voted 100 percent for the Constitution, would the gentleman still complain about my voting record being 90 percent, 99 percent in opposition? Being for liberty is not a negative position.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.
!CITE:
1999-94:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds.
!CITE:
1999-94:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
!CITE:
1999-94:4
Comprehensive impatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
!CITE:
1999-94:5
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services.
!CITE:
1999-94:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
!CITE:
1999-94:7
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
!DATE:
8 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.
!CITE:
1999-95:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds.
!CITE:
1999-95:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbus and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
!CITE:
1999-95:4
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
!CITE:
1999-95:5
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by intergrating with other services.
!CITE:
1999-95:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
!CITE:
1999-95:7
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.
!TITLE:
Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week
!DATE:
9 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness Week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.
!CITE:
1999-96:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
!CITE:
1999-96:3
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
!CITE:
1999-96:4
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. in addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services.
!CITE:
1999-96:5
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
!CITE:
1999-96:6
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness Week.
!TITLE:
Campaign Finance Reform
!DATE:
14 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, political corruption is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by ‘investing’ in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
!CITE:
1999-97:2
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government — legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
!CITE:
1999-97:3
There’s tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ‘forced’ to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense — since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
!CITE:
1999-97:4
Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising the liberty of political speech through regulating political money.
!CITE:
1999-97:5
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.
!CITE:
1999-97:6
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”
!CITE:
1999-97:7
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.
!CITE:
1999-97:8
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending — a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
!CITE:
1999-97:9
The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views.
!CITE:
1999-97:10
The wealthy gain a significant edge since it’s clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.
!CITE:
1999-97:11
Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger.
!CITE:
1999-97:12
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral “political action committees” that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral “political action committees” that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.
!CITE:
1999-97:13
Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is “granted” in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.
!CITE:
1999-97:14
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
!CITE:
1999-97:15
True reform is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.
!TITLE:
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
!DATE:
27 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. “Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.” While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically.
!CITE:
1999-98:2
That the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar (an expedited procedure reserved for “non controversial” bills) show how far we have moved from our posturing that we claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers.
!CITE:
1999-98:3
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, “Is America Number One!” In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:
!CITE:
1999-98:4
Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you’re taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list — Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn’t everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.
!CITE:
1999-98:5
In the show, Peter Jennings said that “Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.” Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, “The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let’s go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.”
!CITE:
1999-98:6
Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy in favor of creating a middle class entitlement by expanding eligibility for occupancy to as high as 80% of the area median income for existing housing developments for seniors. I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advise.
!TITLE:
East Timor
!DATE:
28 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I lack concern for the serious problems that the East Timorese are undergoing, and not for lack of humanitarian concerns for this group of people or anybody in the world. It is just that there is another side to the argument for us intervening. And, besides, we helped create the problem in Indonesia.
!CITE:
1999-99:2
In the 1970’s, we were very supportive of the Indonesian Government in their takeover of East Timor after it became independent from Portugal. So once again, here we are intervening.
!CITE:
1999-99:3
I would like to advise my colleagues that we are not just endorsing a humanitarian effort to help people who are suffering. We are literally giving the President carte blanche to go and commit war in this area. We are committing ourselves to troops, and it is an open-ended policy.
!CITE:
1999-99:4
We complained a whole lot about what was happening in Kosovo. And that operation has not ended. It is continuing. This is just another example of being involved, although with good intentions, but with unintended consequences just hanging around the corner.
!CITE:
1999-99:5
I would like to point out that some of those unintended consequences can be rather serious. I would like to call my colleagues’ attention to number 11 under the resolve clause, making these points. Number 11 says it “expresses support for a rapid and effective deployment throughout East Timor of the United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force.” This means troops.
!CITE:
1999-99:6
Our Security Council has already decided to send troops to East Timor. What we are doing today is rubber stamping this effort to send troops into another part of the world in a place where we have no national security interests. We do not know what victory means. We do not know what lies ahead.
!CITE:
1999-99:7
In addition, under number 13, it “expresses approval of United States logistical and other technical support for deployment of a multinational force for East Timor.” Troops, that is what it means, endangerment and risk that this could escalate.
!CITE:
1999-99:8
Under number 13, there is another part that concerns me a great deal. In the 1970s, we passed the War Powers Resolution. Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats endorsed the notion that Presidents should be restrained in their effort to wage war without declaration.
!CITE:
1999-99:9
Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President’s ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it.
!CITE:
1999-99:10
I think this is dangerous. We should be going in the other direction. This is certainly what was expressed many, many times on the floor during the Kosovo debates. But we lost that debate, although we had a large number of colleagues that argued for non-involvement. We are now entrenched in Kosovo, and we are about to become entrenched in East Timor, not under the auspices of the United States, but under the United Nations.
!CITE:
1999-99:11
I do not see that the sanctity and the interests of the United States will be benefitted by what we are getting ready to do.
!CITE:
1999-99:12
Number 16 under the resolved clause, “recognizes that an effective United States foreign policy for this region requires both an effective near-term response to the ongoing humanitarian violence in, and progress toward independence for, East Timor.”
!CITE:
1999-99:13
If we decide that we have to fight for and engage troops for everybody who wants to be independent, we have a lot of work ahead of us. And, in addition, in the same clause, “and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy.”
!CITE:
1999-99:14
This is a major commitment. This is not just a resolution that is saying that we support humanitarian aid. This is big stuff. The American people ought to know it, the Members of Congress ought to know it.
!CITE:
1999-99:15
This resolution became available to me just within the last 20 minutes. It has been difficult to know exactly what is in it, and yet it is very significant, very important; and we in the Congress should not vote casually and carelessly on this issue. This is a major commitment. I think it is going in the wrong direction, and we should consider the fact that there are so often unintended consequences from our efforts to do what is right.
!CITE:
1999-99:16
I understand the motivation behind this, but tragically this type of action tends to always backfire because we do not follow the rule of law. And the rule of law says if we commit troops, we ought to get the direct and explicit authority from the Congress with a war resolution. This, in essence, is a baby war resolution, but it is a war resolution.
!TITLE:
Humanitarian Aid
!DATE:
28 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
!CITE:
1999-100:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman makes a good case for the humanitarian needs of the people. My point is that sometimes our efforts do not do what we want.
!CITE:
1999-100:3
For instance, the gentleman talks about the thugs that are in Indonesia, those who are violating the rights of the East Timorese. We have to realize that they have been our allies and we helped set up the situation. So our interventions do not always do what we want.
!CITE:
1999-100:4
Also, the gentleman talks about the Soviets. We supported the Soviets.

Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Speaker. If I may remind my colleague of history, it was President Ford and under President Ford’s tenure that we acquiesced in the occupation of East Timor by the Indonesian military.
!CITE:
1999-100:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. But I happen to see these things in a very nonpartisan manner. So to turn this into a Republican versus Democrat issue, I think, is in error. I would like to suggest that the careless use of the word isolationism does not apply to me because I am not a protectionist. I believe in openness. I want people and capital and goods and services to go back and forth. When we trade with people, we are less likely to fight with them.
!CITE:
1999-100:6
So the proposal and the program I am suggesting is a constitutional program. I believe it is best for the people. It has nothing to do with isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is to isolate ourselves from doing dumb things that get us involved in things like Korea and Vietnam, where we do not even know why we are there and we end up losing. That is what I am opposed to.
!TITLE:
War On East Timor
!DATE:
28 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. To try to tie in World War II is not quite fair. I think the gentleman has to admit that we are not talking about that. Besides, I am talking as much about procedure as I am talking about the policy itself.
!CITE:
1999-101:2
In World War II there was a serious problem around the world. It was brought to this Congress. We voted on a war resolution. We went to war. The country was unified, and we won. That is what I endorse, that procedure. What I do not endorse is us getting involved the back-door way; getting involved carelessly and casually. Not realizing what we are doing.
!CITE:
1999-101:3
I come to the floor only to try to warn my colleagues of what they are voting on today; that this is not just a simple humanitarian resolution. It is the process I’m concerned about. If we bring a war resolution to the floor and say, look, we need to go to war to defend the East Timorese, we can vote it up and down and decide to go over and settle it in 2 or 3 months. But we should not do what we are doing now, to endorse internationalism, or interventionism that inevitably fails.
!CITE:
1999-101:4
I think there is a better way to proceed, and it is written in the Constitution.
!TITLE:
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
!DATE:
30 September 1999
!CITE:
1999-102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged.
!CITE:
1999-102:2
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand.
!CITE:
1999-102:3
The law’s failure to protect the weakest, smallest and most innocent of all the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.
!CITE:
1999-102:4
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.
!CITE:
1999-102:5
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court’s error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.
!CITE:
1999-102:6
Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been — and should remain — state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history.
!CITE:
1999-102:7
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.
!CITE:
1999-102:8
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an “M.D.” after his name.
!CITE:
1999-102:9
By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency.
!CITE:
1999-102:10
Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur.
!CITE:
1999-102:11
State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous states already have laws that correctly punishes those committing acts of murder against a fetus.
!CITE:
1999-102:12
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists.
!CITE:
1999-102:13
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
!CITE:
1999-102:14
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) federal murder and assault statutes apply, the federal government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
!CITE:
1999-102:15
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?
!CITE:
1999-102:16
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
!CITE:
1999-102:17
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
!CITE:
1999-102:18
In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
!CITE:
1999-102:19
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
!CITE:
1999-102:20
Occasionally the argument is put forth that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of a police power.
!CITE:
1999-102:21
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
!CITE:
1999-102:22
When small governments become too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
!CITE:
1999-102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.
!TITLE:
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
!DATE:
4 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an M.D. I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting the role as legislator and politician.
!CITE:
1999-103:2
The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the medical care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.
!CITE:
1999-103:3
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market.
!CITE:
1999-103:4
In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides.
!CITE:
1999-103:5
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
!CITE:
1999-103:6
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
!CITE:
1999-103:7
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers’ bill of rights, or now a patients’ bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we are facing today in providing medical care.
!CITE:
1999-103:8
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us to this managed-care monster. If we pursued a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the Government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
!CITE:
1999-103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
!CITE:
1999-103:10
The patients’ bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
!CITE:
1999-103:11
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with the tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made.
!CITE:
1999-103:12
A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
!CITE:
1999-103:13
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
!CITE:
1999-103:14
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
!CITE:
1999-103:15
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
!CITE:
1999-103:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
!CITE:
1999-103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
!CITE:
1999-103:18
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes, not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.
!CITE:
1999-103:19
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.
!CITE:
1999-103:20
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.
!CITE:
1999-103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
!CITE:
1999-103:22
Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis.
!CITE:
1999-103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
!CITE:
1999-103:24
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
!CITE:
1999-103:25
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
!TITLE:
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
!DATE:
6 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an MD, I know that when I advise on medical legislation I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views, but nevertheless I am acting the role of legislator and politician. The MD degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and other services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiency of markets, even the medical care market; not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.
!CITE:
1999-104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
!CITE:
1999-104:3
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMOs’ role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion among organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have “universal” food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs and yet many of the “poor” do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
!CITE:
1999-104:4
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new “Bill of Rights” such as a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or now a Patient’s Bill of Rights. Why don’t more Members ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services. If over the last fifty years we had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in providing medical care.
!CITE:
1999-104:5
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed care monster. If we pursue the course of more government management — in an effort to balance things — we’re destined to make the problem much worse. If government mismanagement, in an area that the government should not be managing at all, is the problem, another level of bureaucracy — no matter how well intended — cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government provided medical care and it’s inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
!CITE:
1999-104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
!CITE:
1999-104:7
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third-parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels become much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
!CITE:
1999-104:8
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
!CITE:
1999-104:9
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
!CITE:
1999-104:10
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
!CITE:
1999-104:11
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
!CITE:
1999-104:12
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.
!CITE:
1999-104:13
Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.
!CITE:
1999-104:14
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of the problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.
!CITE:
1999-104:15
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.
!CITE:
1999-104:16
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.
!CITE:
1999-104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
!CITE:
1999-104:18
Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis.
!CITE:
1999-104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!
!CITE:
1999-104:20
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
!CITE:
1999-104:21
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
!TITLE:
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
!DATE:
14 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!
!CITE:
1999-105:2
The NLRB has repeatedly proven itself incapable of acting as an unbiased arbiter for individual employees. Most recently the NLRB established a new nationwide rule that union officials may force employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment — directly contradicting several Supreme Court rulings!
!CITE:
1999-105:3
It is an outrage that the tax dollars of working men and women are wasted on an agency that flaunts Supreme Court rulings in support of its forced-dues agenda — especially when local schools are struggling with the IDEA mandate that they provide a “free and appropriate” public education to children with disabilities.
!CITE:
1999-105:4
Congress must make funding for schools and disabled children a greater priority than funding for a rogue federal agency. Therefore, hope all my colleagues will support the Paul-Doolittle amendment to H.R. 3037.
!TITLE:
No Neeed for Federal Animal Cruelty Laws
!DATE:
19 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-106:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If ever there were a bill unnecessary, this is one. It is an example of us here in the Congress looking for dragons to slay. This is absolutely unnecessary. There is no real purpose in passing this legislation. As has been said, all 50 States have laws against violence and cruelty to animals. That should be adequate. But the way this bill is written really opens up a Pandora’s box. It is a can of worms.
!CITE:
1999-106:2
Take, for instance, it says, “whoever knowingly possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce.” That, you can get 5 years for. How do you prove intention? This is subjective, purely subjective. This is not narrowly written, this is very broadly written. This is a first amendment concern to many, but it is also so unnecessary.
!CITE:
1999-106:3
Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Ed Meese, has stated recently, there is just no need for more Federal laws. We do not need more Federal laws. We cannot even enforce the ones that we have. And besides, this is strictly a State matter.
!CITE:
1999-106:4
Now, if they want to use the interstate commerce clause, they should be reminded, up until this century at least, the interstate commerce clause was used in its original intent to open up trade between the States. It was never the excuse to regulate everything between the States. That is a 20th century distortion of the interstate commerce clause. So that is not even a real good excuse for this.
!CITE:
1999-106:5
Now, cruelty to animals, nobody is going to come and defend cruelty to animals. But quite frankly there will be times it will be difficult to define. The motivation for most cruelty to animals is because people are sick. This is a mental illness. We are dealing with mental illness here and we are going to write a Federal law against it. So if somebody, and it was even mentioned by the proponents of this bill, that people like Ted Bundy delight in this. Yes. These people are psychopaths. They are nuts. It is an illness. We cannot pass a law to deal with mental illness. I strongly object to this approach. We should be thinking not only about the process but of the unintended consequences of passing legislation like this.
!CITE:
1999-106:6
I have seen some pretty violent ads on television of killing cockroaches. I know that is not their intention. I went fishing one time and it was rather ghastly. I am not a very good fisherman nor a hunter. I cannot see the killing of animals. But to see the hook pulled up on a kingfish and have the fish thrown on the deck and the fish suffocate, we make movies of this. This is on television. They say this will not be affected. How do we know? There are hunting films on television. Animals are shot. Maybe people are delighting in looking at the cruelty or the killing of animals on television even though they are sporting or fishing shows.
!CITE:
1999-106:7
Yes, I agree that is not what is intended, but so often our legislation gets carried away and is misinterpreted. I would ask my colleagues not to pass this legislation. This legislation does not have any redeeming value whatsoever. It is well-intended in the sense that people object to cruelty to animals but quite frankly I have not had one single request from my 595,000 constituents in my district for this bill, and I would like to see how many others who would honestly get up here and say, oh, I have had dozens or hundreds or thousands of people.
!CITE:
1999-106:8
The only people that I have heard that have requested this piece of legislation are law enforcement officials, not the judges who have to deal with this, not the people in the country, not the State legislative bodies, not the governors, but people who may want to have a lot more activity to do things they are not doing well enough anyway. Federal law enforcement is lagging. So to put another law on the books which is not well written, and it is subjective in that we have to decide whether or not the person who possesses this material is intending to sell it to somebody.
!CITE:
1999-106:9
This bill really is something that we need to just reject, vote down. We do not need it. The States will take care of this. We do not need to be bashful and say that if we do not vote for this bill for some reason that we endorse the idea of animal cruelty. That is not the case. Nobody endorses this. I just think that the qualifications in here to exempt certain people like journalistic and historical and artistic, these categories, quite frankly, who will be the judge? It will be very difficult to do.
!TITLE:
Stop Federal Funding for Schools
!DATE:
20 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-107:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1999-107:2
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I know that the goal of everyone here is to have quality education for everyone in this country. I do not like the approach. The approach has been going on for 30 years with us here in the Congress at the national level controlling and financing education. But the evidence is pretty clear there has been no success. It is really a total failure. Yet the money goes up continuously. This year it is an 8 percent increase for Title I over last year.
!CITE:
1999-107:3
In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working.
!CITE:
1999-107:4
I just ask my colleagues to think about whether or not we should continue on this same course. I know the chairman of the committee has made a concerted effort in trying to get more local control over the schools, and I think this is commendable. I think there should be more local control. But I am also convinced that once the money comes from Washington, you really never can deliver the control back to the local authorities. So that we should give it serious thought on whether or not this approach is correct.
!CITE:
1999-107:5
Now, I know it is not a very powerful argument, but I might just point out that if Members read carefully the doctrine of enumerated powers, we find that it does not mention that we have the authority, but I concede that we have gotten around that for more than 35 years so we are not likely to reconsider that today. But as far as the practicality goes, we should rethink it.
!CITE:
1999-107:6
If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we think we can continue to do this.
!CITE:
1999-107:7
There are more mandates in this bill. Even though we like to talk about local control, there are more mandates, and this bill will authorize not only the $8 billion and an 8 percent increase this year, but over the next 5 years there will be an additional $28 billion added to the budget because of this particular piece of legislation.
!CITE:
1999-107:8
I ask my colleagues, give it serious thought. This does not deserve passage.
!TITLE:
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
!DATE:
21 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain an exception for “good intentions!”
!CITE:
1999-108:2
The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to increased levels of taxation, federally-empowered “experts” would create an educational utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education has, not coincidently, coincided with a decline in American public education. In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than nine hundred thousand dollars, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when federal education spending ballooned to 19 billion dollars, the average SAT score had fallen to 902. Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of America’s 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th grade level!
!CITE:
1999-108:3
Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the “right federal program” conceived by enlightened members and staffers will lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years — yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes local control!
!CITE:
1999-108:4
One mandate requires states to give priority to K–6 education programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance this may seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an equal, or greater, amount of resources to high school education. In fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I funds if this provision becomes law! What makes DC-based politicians and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas school district than that school’s principal?
!CITE:
1999-108:5
Another mandate requires teacher aides to be “fully qualified” if the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this may appear to be simply a matter of following sound practice, the cost of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to go without teachers aides, placing another burden on our already overworked public school teachers.
!CITE:
1999-108:6
Some may claim that this bill does not contain “mandates” as no state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal specifications.
!CITE:
1999-108:7
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to “hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.” This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce “report cards” listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child’s education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.
!CITE:
1999-108:8
Furthermore, maximum decentralization is the key to increasing education quality. This is because decentralized systems are controlled by those who know the unique needs of an individual child, whereas centralized systems are controlled by bureaucrats who impose a “one-size fits all” model. The model favored by bureaucrats can never meet the special needs of individual children in the local community because the bureaucrats have no way of knowing those particular needs. Small wonder that students in states with decentralized education score 10 percentage points higher on the NAEP tests in math and reading than students in states with centralized education.
!CITE:
1999-108:9
Fortunately there is an alternative educational policy to the one before us today that respects the Constitution and improves education by restoring true accountability to America’s education system. Returning real control to the American people by returning direct control of the education dollars to America’s parents and concerned citizens is the only proper solution. This is precisely why I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for the K–12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Tax Credit Act (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash contributions to scholarships as well as any cash and in-kind contribution to public, private, or religious schools.
!CITE:
1999-108:10
By placing control of education funding directly into the hands of parents and concerned citizens, my bills restore true accountability to education. When parents control education funding, schools must respond to the parents’ desire for a quality education, otherwise the parent will seek other educational options for their child.
!CITE:
1999-108:11
Instead of fighting over what type of federal intervention is best for education, Congress should honor their constitutional oath and give complete control over America’s educational system to the states and people. Therefore, Congress should reject this legislation and instead work to restore true accountability to America’s parents by defunding the education bureaucracy and returning control of the education dollar to America’s parents.
!TITLE:
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
!DATE:
21 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT “A’s” fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT “A’s” states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting “civil rights.” Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT “A’s” will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
!CITE:
1999-109:2
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.
!CITE:
1999-109:3
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people’s money.
!CITE:
1999-109:4
The primary objection to STRAIGHT “A’s” from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of “accountability” stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school’s performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals,” they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT “A’s” programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s five-year education plan — yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!
!CITE:
1999-109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
!CITE:
1999-109:6
In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.
!CITE:
1999-109:7
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.
!CITE:
1999-109:8
When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by helping to finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.
!CITE:
1999-109:9
It is the Family Education Freedom Act, not STRAIGHT “A’s”, which represents the education policy best suited for a constitutional republic and a free society. The Family Education Freedom Act ensures that schools are accountable to parents, whereas STRAIGHT “A’s” continues to hold schools accountable to bureaucrats.
!CITE:
1999-109:10
Since the STRAIGHT “A’s” bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government’s usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America’s parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.
!TITLE:
Introduction Of Public Safety Tax Cut Act
!DATE:
21 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals.
!CITE:
1999-110:2
First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
!CITE:
1999-110:3
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.
!CITE:
1999-110:4
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America’s rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.
!CITE:
1999-110:5
This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.
!CITE:
1999-110:6
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
!CITE:
1999-110:7
Mr. Speaker I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, and I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.
!TITLE:
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
!DATE:
27 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.
!CITE:
1999-111:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill.
!CITE:
1999-111:3
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.
!CITE:
1999-111:4
I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing.
!CITE:
1999-111:5
This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.
!CITE:
1999-111:6
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.
!CITE:
1999-111:7
Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse.
!CITE:
1999-111:8
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.
!CITE:
1999-111:9
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.
!CITE:
1999-111:10
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.
!CITE:
1999-111:11
Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
!CITE:
1999-111:12
Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
!CITE:
1999-111:13
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.
!CITE:
1999-111:14
H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the prescribing of narcotics for alleviating pain from that of intentionally killing the patient. There is no way medically, legally, or morally to tell the difference. This law will serve to curtail the generous use of narcotics in a legitimate manner in caring for the dying. Claiming that this law will not hinder the legitimate use of drugs for medical purposes but not for an intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear that a doctor will be charged for intentionally killing a patient, even though the patient may have died coincidentally with an injection, this bill will provide a great barrier to the adequate treatment of our sick and dying who are suffering and are in intense pain.
!CITE:
1999-111:15
The loss of a narcotic’s license, as this bill would dictate as punishment, is essentially denying a medical license to all doctors practicing medicine. Criminal penalties can be invoked as well. I would like to call attention to my colleagues that this bill is a lot more than changing the Controlled Substance Act. It is involved with educational and training programs to dictate to all physicians providing palliative care and how it should be managed. An entirely new program is set up with an administrator that “shall” carry out a program to accomplish the developing and the advancing of scientific understanding of palliative care and to disseminate protocols and evidence-based practices regarding palliative care.
!CITE:
1999-111:16
All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be construed as being “correct”.
!CITE:
1999-111:17
This program is designed to instruct public and private health care programs throughout the nation as well as medical schools, hospices and the general public. Once these standards are set and if any variation occurs and a subsequent death coincidentally occurs that physician will be under the gun from the DEA. Charges will be made and the doctor will have to defend himself and may end up losing his license. It will with certainty dampen the enthusiasm of the physician caring for the critically ill.
!CITE:
1999-111:18
Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that the program carried out with the award will follow the government guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional schools, i.e. the medical schools’ residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be withheld.
!CITE:
1999-111:19
The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs are required to evaluate all the programs which means more reports to be filled out by the institutions for bureaucrats in Washington to study. The results of these reports will be to determine the effect such programs have on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care. Twenty four million dollars is authorized for this new program.
!CITE:
1999-111:20
This program and this bill essentially nationalizes all terminal care and opens up Pandora’s box in regards to patient choices as well as doctor judgment. This bill, no matter how well intended, is dangerously flawed and will do great harm to the practice of medicine and for the care of the dying. This bill should be rejected.
!TITLE:
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
!DATE:
27 October 1999
!CITE:
1999-112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
!CITE:
1999-112:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This will improve the bill. I am very concerned, as a physician, that this bill will do great harm to the practice of medicine. This is micromanaging the palliative care of the dying.
!CITE:
1999-112:3
So I strongly support this amendment because it will remove the severe penalties and the threats. Physicians are accustomed to practicing with lawyers over their shoulders. Now we are going to add another DEA agent over our shoulders to watch what we do.
!CITE:
1999-112:4
It is said, well, there is not going to be any change in law. Well, if there is not, why the bill? Certainly there is a change in law. This bill does not state that it is dealing with euthanasis. It says it is a pain relief promotion act.
!CITE:
1999-112:5
Generally speaking, I look at the names of bills and sometimes intentionally and sometimes just out of the way things happen here, almost always the opposite happens from the bill that we raise up. So I would call this the pain promotion act. I really sincerely believe, as a physician, that this will not help.
!CITE:
1999-112:6
Too often physicians are intimidated and frightened about giving the adequate pain medication that is necessary to relieve pain. This amendment will be helpful. This is what we should do. We should not intimidate. The idea of dealing with the issue of euthanasis, euthanasia is killing. It is murder.
!CITE:
1999-112:7
I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue.
!CITE:
1999-112:8
I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.
!CITE:
1999-112:9
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the Court’s ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision.
!CITE:
1999-112:10
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of “assisted” suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States — most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting “assisted suicide” — and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.
!CITE:
1999-112:11
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
!CITE:
1999-112:12
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
!CITE:
1999-112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
!CITE:
1999-112:14
Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently, though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer’s role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute assisted suicide.
!CITE:
1999-112:15
To help the health care professionals become familiar with what will become the new federal medical standard, the bill also authorizes $24 million dollars over the next five years for grant programs to health education institutions. This is yet another federal action to be found nowhere amongst the enumerated powers.
!CITE:
1999-112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
!TITLE:
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
!DATE:
4 November 1999
!CITE:
1999-113:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.
!CITE:
1999-113:2
With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy’s vaunted productivity gains.
!CITE:
1999-113:3
Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially “painful” adjustments — some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.
!CITE:
1999-113:4
Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation — keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.
!CITE:
1999-113:5
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average — and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
!CITE:
1999-113:6
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
!CITE:
1999-113:7
This increased indication of the government’s eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn’t even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
!CITE:
1999-113:8
Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers’ loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by “opting out” and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.
!CITE:
1999-113:9
The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.
!TITLE:
Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws
!DATE:
8 November 1999
!CITE:
1999-114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, by now, the Microsoft antitrust case should have caught every Member’s attention. This is a good time for Congress to reassess the antitrust laws.
!CITE:
1999-114:2
Under current law, collusion, negotiations, or even discussions about markets may be enough to find someone guilty of breaking these laws. Prices in one industry that are too high, too low, or all the same are suspect and could be used as evidence of monopoly practices.
!CITE:
1999-114:3
We must remember bigness in a free market is only achieved by the vote of consumers, supporting a company that gives them a good product at a low price.
!CITE:
1999-114:4
It is an economic truism that the only true monopoly is government protected, such as the Post Office or a public utility. There is nothing more annoying than a government bureaucrat or Federal judge gleefully condemning a productive enterprising capitalist for doing a good job. These little men filled with envy are capable of producing nothing and are motivated by their own inadequacies and desires to wield authority against men of talent.
!CITE:
1999-114:5
In a free market, the consumer is king, not the businessman. The regulators hate both and relish their role of making sure the market is fair according to their biased standards.
!CITE:
1999-114:6
Antitrust suits are rarely, if ever, pursued by consumers. It is always a little disgruntled competitor, a bureaucrat who needs to justify his own existence.
!CITE:
1999-114:7
Judge Jackson condemned Microsoft for being a “vigorous protector of its own self-interests.” Now this is to be a crime in America. To care for oneself and do what corporations are supposed to do, that is, maximize profits for stockholders by making customers happy, is the great crime committed in the Microsoft case.
!CITE:
1999-114:8
Blind to the fact that there is no conflict between the self-interest of a capitalist and the consumers’ best interests, the trust busters go their merry way without a complaint from the Congress which could change these laws.
!CITE:
1999-114:9
Only blind resentment drives the economic planners and condemns business success, good products, low prices, and consumer satisfaction while undermining the system that has provided so much for so many.
!CITE:
1999-114:10
Many big companies have achieved success with government subsidies, contracts, and special interest legislation. This type of bigness must be distinguished from bigness achieved in a free market by providing consumer satisfaction.
!CITE:
1999-114:11
To help rectify the situation, Congress should first stop all assistance to business, no more corporate welfare, no bailouts like we saw to Lockheed, Chrysler, Long-Term Capital Management and many others.
!CITE:
1999-114:12
Second, we ought to repeal the archaic and impossible-to-understand antitrust laws.
!CITE:
1999-114:13
Next, we should crown the consumers king and let them vote with their money on who should succeed and who should fail.
!CITE:
1999-114:14
We should then suppress the envy which drives the anticapitalist mentality.
!CITE:
1999-114:15
The Bill Gateses of the world can only invest their money in job-creating projects or donate it to help the needy. The entrepreneurial giants are not a threat to stability or prosperity. Government bureaucrats and Federal judges are. But strict enforcement of all the ill-inspired antitrust laws does not serve the consumer, nor the cause of liberty.
!TITLE:
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
!DATE:
17 November 1999
!CITE:
1999-115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, demonstrators are once again condemning America in a foreign city. This time, it is in Kabul, Afghanistan. Shouting “Death to America,” burning our flag, and setting off bombings, the demonstrators express their hatred toward America.
!CITE:
1999-115:2
The United States has just placed sanctions on yet another country to discipline those who do not obey our commands. The nerve of them. Do they not know we are the most powerful Nation in the world and we have to meet our responsibilities? They should do as we say and obey our CIA directives.
!CITE:
1999-115:3
This process is not new. It has been going on for 50 years, and it has brought us grief and multiplied our enemies. Can one only imagine what the expression of hatred might be if we were not the most powerful Nation in the world?
!CITE:
1999-115:4
Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred.
!CITE:
1999-115:5
The most current anti-American demonstrations in Kabul were understandable and predictable. Our one-time ally, Osama bin Laden, when he served as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when we bombed his Serbian enemies while siding with his friends in Kosovo, has not been fooled and knows that his cause cannot be promoted by our fickle policy.
!CITE:
1999-115:6
Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society.
!CITE:
1999-115:7
Likewise, the bombings in Islamabad and possibly the U.N. plane crash in Kosovo are directly related to our meddling in the internal affairs of these nations.
!CITE:
1999-115:8
General Musharraf’s successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America’s interference with Sharif’s handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.
!CITE:
1999-115:9
I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own.
!CITE:
1999-115:10
Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.
!CITE:
1999-115:11
The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti-American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombing and sanctions.
!TITLE:
Allow Hi-Tech Supervision of Home Health Agency Branch Offices
!DATE:
18 November 1999
!CITE:
1999-116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075, which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System (PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health agencies be allowed the flexibility to establish and serve large service areas by utilizing cost efficient branch offices.
!CITE:
1999-116:2
My district includes many rural areas which are experiencing access problems due to the Health Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA’s) home health branch office policies affecting time/distance limitations and on-site supervision requirements. In many cases, these requirements do not recognize technology advances. In order to ensure that senior citizens in rural areas have access to quality home care, it is vital that any regulations on home health care branch offices promulgated by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) evaluate the offices by quality of outcome instead of arbitrary administration requirements and restrictions.
!CITE:
1999-116:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the report language accompanying H.R. 3075 urging the use of outcome instead of arbitrary requirements and restrictions, to determine a home health care agency’s ability to establish and supervise branch offices. 


Volume 2000 — The Book of Ron Paul



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Education and Workforce Committee:
!DATE:
January 28, 2000


!TITLE:
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations

Submitted before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:1
    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 OSHAs regulatory authority in the homes 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, amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act to clarify that OSHA has no authority over worksites located in an employee’s residence.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:2
    Modern technology, 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 from telecommuting, thus shutting millions of mothers, persons caring for elderly parents, and disabled citizens out of the workforce!


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:3
    Federal polices 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?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:4
    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 be always 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!


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:5
    Some may argue that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHAs invasiveness promotes workplace safety! While it is true that workplace accidents have declined since OSHAs creation, OSHA itself has had little effect on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before OSHAs 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 OSHAs creation. In contrast to the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHAs creation, workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the 21 years after OSHAs creation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:6
    OSHAs 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, OSHAs 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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:7
    This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage 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 constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 1:8
    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.



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
A Republic, If You Can Keep It

!DATE:
31 January 2000

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this special order this evening to discuss the importance of the American Republic and why it should be preserved.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:2
Mr. Speaker, the dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many of us to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our Nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the Republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:3
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:4
The term “republic” had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:5
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:6
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several States, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the State and the people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:7
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:8
The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:9
The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man’s action, the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not simply to be a cog in a wheel or a single cell of an organism or a branch of a tree but an individual with free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life’s dreams and assume one’s responsibilities.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:10
If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man’s highest and noblest goals, so should man’s mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:11
Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:12
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator. And if government could not grant rights to individuals, it certainly should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:14
It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered. The colonists wanted to be free of the King’s oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them that even their trees on their own property could not be cut without the King’s permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:15
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive, nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements. It was a great plan. We should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this Nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:16
The founders often spoke of divine providence and that God willed us this great Nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this Nation are understood and maintained. We, as Members of Congress, have that responsibility.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:17
This is a good year to address this subject, the beginning of a new century and millennium provides a wonderful opportunity for all of us to dedicate ourselves to studying and preserving these important principles of liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:18
One would have to conclude from history as well as current conditions that the American Republic has been extremely successful. It certainly has allowed the creation of great wealth with a large middle-class and many very wealthy corporations and individuals. Although the poor are still among us, compared to other parts of the world, even the poor in this country have done quite well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:19
We still can freely move about from town to town, State to State, and job to job. Free education is available to everyone, even for those who do not want it or care about it. But the capable and the incapable are offered a government education. We can attend the church of our choice, start a newspaper, use the Internet and meet in private when we choose. Food is plentiful throughout the country and oftentimes even wasted. Medical technology has dramatically advanced and increased life expectancy for both men and women.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:20
Government statistics are continuously reaffirming our great prosperity with evidence of high and rising wages, no inflation, and high consumer confidence and spending. The U.S. Government still enjoys good credit and a strong currency in relationship to most other currencies of the world. We have no trouble financing our public nor private debt. Housing markets are booming and interest rates remain reasonable by modern day standards. Unemployment is low.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:21
Recreational spending and time spent at leisure are at historic highs. Stock market profits are benefiting more families than ever in our history. Income, payroll, and capital gains taxes have been a windfall for politicians who lack no creative skills in figuring out how to keep the tax-and-spend policies in full gear. The American people accept the status quo and hold no grudges against our President.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:22
The nature of a republic and the current status of our own are of little concern to the American people in general. Yet there is a small minority ignored by political, academic, and media personnel who do spend time thinking about the importance of what the proper role for government should be. The comparison of today’s government to the one established by our Constitution is the subject of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the fall election.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:23
The benefits we enjoy are a result of the Constitution our founding fathers had the wisdom to write. However, understanding the principles that were used to establish our Nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:24
Unbelievable changes have occurred in the 20th century. We went from the horse and buggy age to the space age. Computer technology and the Internet have dramatically changed the way we live. All kinds of information and opinions on any subject are now available by clicking a few buttons. Technology offers an opportunity for everyone who seeks to the truth to find it, yet at the same time it enhances the ability of government to monitor our every physical, communicative, and financial move.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:25
Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt. For the true believers in big government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause. We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, “Know Your Customer” regulations on banking activity, a national security agent all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the many ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:26
The 20th century has truly been a century of unbelievable technological advancement. We should be cognizant of what this technology has done to the size and nature of our own Government. It could easily be argued that, with greater technological advances, the need for government ought to decline and private alternatives be enhanced. But there is not much evidence for that argument.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:27
In 1902, the cost of Government activities at all levels came to 7.7 percent of GDP. Today it is more than 50 percent.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:28
Government officials oversee everything we do, from regulating the amount of water in our commodes to placing airbags in our cars, safety locks on our guns, and using our own land. Almost every daily activity we engage in is monitored or regulated by some Government agency. If one attempts to just avoid Government harassment, one finds himself in deep trouble with the law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:29
Yes, we can be grateful that the technological developments in the marketplace over the last 100 years have made our lives more prosperous and enjoyable. But any observant person must be annoyed by the ever-present Big Brother that watches and records our every move.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:30
The idea that we are responsible for our own actions has been seriously undermined. And it would be grossly misleading to argue that the huge growth in the size of government has been helpful and necessary in raising the standard of living of so many Americans.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:31
Since government cannot create anything, it can only resort to using force to redistribute the goods that energetic citizens produce. The old-fashioned term for this is “theft.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:32
It is clear that our great prosperity has come in spite of the obstacles that big government places in our way and not because of it. And besides, our current prosperity may well not be as permanent as many believe.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:33
Quite a few major changes in public policy have occurred in this century. These changes in policy reflect our current attitude toward the American Republic and the Constitution and help us to understand what to expect in the future. Economic prosperity seems to have prevailed. But the appropriate question asked by too few Americans is, have our personal liberties be undermined?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:34
Taxes: Taxes are certainly higher. A federal income tax of 35 to 40 percent is something many middle-class Americans must pay, while, on average, they work for the Government more than half the year. In passing on our estates from one generation to the next, our partner, the U.S. Government, decides on its share before the next generation can take over.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:35
The estate tax certainly verifies the saying about the inevitability of death and taxes. At the turn of the century, we had neither. And in spite of a continuous outcry against both, there is no sign that either will soon be eliminated.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:36
Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the Government owns the fruits of our labor as well as our savings and we are permitted by the politicians’ generosity to keep a certain percentage.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:37
Every tax cut proposal in Washington now is considered a cost to Government, not the return of something rightfully belonging to a productive citizen. This principle is true whether it is a 1 percent or 70 percent income tax. Concern for this principle has been rarely expressed in a serious manner over the past 50 years. The withholding process has permitted many to believe that a tax rebate at the end of the year comes as a gift from Government.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:38
Because of this, the real cost of Government to the taxpayer is obscured. The income tax has grown to such an extent and the Government is so dependent on it that any talk of eliminating the income tax is just that, talk. A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation with an income tax and an inheritance tax is incompatible with the principle belief in a true republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership. If kept in place, such a system will undermine prosperity regardless of how well off we may presently be.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:39
In truth, the amount of taxes we now pay compared to 100 years ago is shocking. There is little philosophic condemnation by the intellectual community, the political leaders, or the media of this immoral system. This should be a warning sign to all of us that even in less prosperous times we can expect high taxes and that our productive economic system will come under attack.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:40
Not only have we seen little resistance to the current high tax system, it has become an acceptable notion that this system is moral and is a justified requirement to finance the welfare/ warfare state.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:41
Propaganda polls are continuously cited claiming that the American people do not want tax reductions. High taxes, except for only short periods of time, are incompatible with liberty and prosperity. We will, I am sure, be given the opportunity in the early part of the next century to make a choice between the two. I am certain of my preference.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:42
Welfare: There was no welfare state in 1900. In the year 2000, we have a huge welfare state which continues to grow each year. Not that special interest legislation did not exist in the 19th century. But for the most part, it was limited and directed toward the monied interest, the most egregious example being the railroads.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:43
The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Federal Government is now involved in providing healthcare, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special interest group. Welfare is now a part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a right, something one is entitled to. Calling it an entitlement makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:44
Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians’ attention will get what he wants even though it may be at the expense of someone else.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:45
Today, it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:46
The acceptance of the welfare ethic and rejection of the work ethic as the process for improving one’s economic condition are now ingrained in our political institutions. This process was started in earnest in the 1930s, received a big boost in the 1960s, and has continued a steady growth even through the 1990s despite some rhetoric in opposition.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:47
This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record. The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with the acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution in the way it had been for our first 150 years.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:48
Where the General Welfare clause once had a clear general meaning, which was intended to prohibit special interest welfare and was something they detested and revolted against under King George, it is now used to justify any demand of any group as long as a majority in the Congress votes for it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:49
But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson, in explaining the General Welfare clause, left no doubt as to its meaning.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:50
Madison said, “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution and to a character which there is a host of proof not contemplated by its creators.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:51
Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the General Welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:52
The Constitution granted authority to the Federal Government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefits of the general welfare of all the people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:53
This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century. Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798 when he said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:54
With the modern-day interpretation of the General Welfare clause, the principle of individual liberty in the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers have been made meaningless.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:55
The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national Government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:56
There is no way that personal liberty will not suffer with every effort to expand or make the welfare state efficient. And the sad part is that the sincere effort to help people do better economically through welfare programs always fails. Dependency replaces selfreliance, while the sense of self-worth of the recipient suffers, making for an angry, unhappy and dissatisfied society. The cost in dollar terms is high, but the cost in terms of liberty is even greater but generally ignored; and, in the long run, there is nothing to show for this sacrifice.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:57
Today there is no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are entitled to the monetary assistance from the Government anytime they need it and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:58
No one asked where the Government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:59
The concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers was picked away at in the latter part of the 19th century over strong objection by many constitutionalists. But it was not until the drumbeat of fear coming from the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression that the courts virtually rewrote the Constitution by reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:60
In 1936, the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced, “The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:61
With the stroke of a pen, the courts amended the Constitution in such a sweeping manner that it literally legalized the entire welfare state, which, not surprisingly, has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:62
Since this ruling, we have rarely heard the true explanation of the General Welfare clause as being a restriction of government power, not a grant of unlimited power.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:63
We cannot ignore corporate welfare, which is part of the problem. Most people think the welfare state involves only giving something to the unfortunate poor. This is generally true. But once the principle established that special benefits are legitimate, the monied interests see the advantages and influences the legislative process.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:64
Our system, which pays lip service to free enterprise and private property ownership, is drifting towards a form of fascism or corporatism rather than conventional socialism. And where the poor never seem to benefit under welfare, corporations become richer. But it should have been expected that once the principle of favoritism was established, the contest would be over who has the greatest clout in Washington.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:65
No wonder lobbyists are willing to spend $125 million per month influencing Congress; it is a good investment. No amount of campaign finance reform or regulation of lobbyists can deal with this problem. The problem lies in the now accepted role for our Government. Government has too much control over people and the market, making the temptation and incentive to influence government irresistible and, to a degree, necessary.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:66
Curtailing how people spend their own money or their right to petition their government will do nothing to this influence peddling. Treating the symptoms and not the disease only further undermines the principles of freedom and property ownership.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:67
Any serious reforms or effort to break away from the welfare state must be directed as much at corporate welfare as routine welfare. Since there is no serious effort to reject welfare on principle, the real conflict over how to divide what Government plunders will continue.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:68
Once it is clear that it is not nearly as wealthy as it appears, this will become a serious problem and it will get the attention it deserves, even here in the Congress.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:69
Preserving liberty and restoring constitutional precepts are impossible as long as the welfare mentality prevails, and that will not likely change until we have run out of money. But it will become clear as we move into the next century that perpetual wealth and the so-called balanced budget, along with an expanding welfare state, cannot continue indefinitely. Any effort to perpetuate it will only occur with the further erosion of liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:70
The role of the U.S. Government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the Federal Government got to public education was the land grant college program. In the last 40 years, the Federal Government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations and curriculum manipulation. In 1900, it was of no concern to the Federal Government how local schools were run at any level.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:71
After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations. Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th century did not experience this kind of propaganda.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:72
The one good result coming from our failed educational system has been the limited, but important, revival of the notion that parents are responsible for their children’s education, not the state. We have seen literally millions of children taken from the public school system and taught at home or in private institutions in spite of the additional expense. This has helped many students and has also served to pressure the government schools into doing a better job. And the statistics show that middle-income and low-income families are the most eager to seek an alternative to the public school system.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:73
There is no doubt that the way schools are run, how the teachers teach and how the bills are paid is dramatically different from 100 years ago. And even though some that go through public schools do exceptionally well, there is clear evidence that the average high school graduate today is far less educated than his counterpart was in the early part of this century.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:74
Due to the poor preparation of our high school graduates, college expects very little from their students since nearly everyone gets to go to college who wants to. Public school is compulsory and college is available to almost everyone, regardless of qualifications. In 1914, English composition was required in 98 percent of our colleges. Today, it is about one-third. Only 12 percent of today’s colleges require mathematics be taught where in 1914, 82 percent did. No college now requires literature courses, but rest assured plenty of social babble courses are required as we continue to dumb down our Nation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:75
Federal funding for education grows every year, hitting $38 billion this year, $1 billion more than requested by the administration and 7 percent more than last year. Great congressional debates occur over the size of the classroom, student and teacher testing, bilingual education, teacher salaries, school violence and drug usage. And it is politically incorrect to point out that all these problems are not present in the private schools. Every year, there is less effort at the Federal level to return education to the people, the parents and the local school officials.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:76
For 20 years at least, some of our presidential candidates advocated the abolishing of the Department of Education and for the Federal Government to get completely out of public education. This year, we will hear no more of that. The President got more money for education than he asked for and it is considered not only bad manners but also political suicide to argue the case for stopping all Federal Government education programs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:77
Talk of returning some control of Federal programs to the States is not the same as keeping the Federal Government out of education as directed by the Constitution. Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved. There is no evidence of any benefit and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense. It is argued that if the Federal funding for education did not continue, education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better, and all done in the absence of violence and drugs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:78
A case can be made that there would be more money available for education if we just left the money in the States to begin with and never brought it to Washington for the bureaucrats and the politicians to waste. But it looks like Congress will not soon learn this lesson, so the process will continue and the results will get worse. The best thing we could do now is pass a bill to give parents a $3,000 tax credit for each child they educate. This would encourage competition and allow a lot more choice for parents struggling to help their children get a decent education.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:79
The practice of medicine is now a government managed care system and very few Americans are happy with it. Not only is there little effort to extricate the Federal Government from the medical care business but the process of expanding the government’s role continues unabated. At the turn of the 19th century, it was not even considered a possibility that medical care was the responsibility of the Federal Government. Since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s, the role of the Federal Government in delivering medical care has grown exponentially. Today the Federal Government pays more than 60 percent of all the medical bills and regulates all of it. The demands continue for more free care at the same time complaints about the shortcomings of managed care multiply. Yet it is natural to assume that government planning and financing will sacrifice quality care. It is now accepted that people who need care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:80
There is no indication that the trend toward government medicine will be reversed. Our problems are related to the direct takeover of medical care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But it has also been the interference in the free market through ERISA mandates related to HMOs and other managed care organizations, as well as our tax code, that have undermined the private insurance aspect of paying for medical care. True medical insurance is not available. The government dictates all the terms.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:81
In the early stages, patients, doctors and hospitals welcomed these programs. Generous care was available with more than adequate reimbursement. It led to what one would expect, abuse, overcharges and overuse. When costs rose, it was necessary through government rulemaking and bureaucratic management to cut reimbursement and limit the procedures available and personal choice of physicians. We do not have socialized medicine but we do have bureaucratic medicine, mismanaged by the government and select corporations who usurp the decisionmaking power from the physician. The way medical care is delivered today in the United States is a perfect example of the evils of corporatism and an artificial system that only politicians, responding to the special interests, could create. There is no reason to believe the market cannot deliver medical care in an efficient manner as it does computers, automobiles and televisions. But the confidence is gone and everyone assumes, just as in education, that only a Federal bureaucracy is capable of solving the problems of maximizing the number of people, including the poor, who receive the best medical care available. In an effort to help the poor, the quality of care has gone down for everyone else and the costs have skyrocketed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:82
Making generous medical savings accounts available is about the only program talked about today that offers an alternative to government mismanaged care. If something of this sort is not soon implemented, we can expect more pervasive government involvement in the practice of medicine. With a continual deterioration of its quality, the private practice of medicine will soon be gone.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:83
Government housing programs are no more successful than the Federal Government’s medical and education programs. In the early part of this century, government housing was virtually unheard of. Now the HUD budget commands over $30 billion each year and increases every year. Finances of mortgages through the Federal Home Loan Bank, the largest Federal Government borrower, is the key financial institution pumping in hundreds of billions of dollars of credit into the housing market, making things worse. The Federal Reserve has now started to use home mortgage securities for monetizing debt. Public housing has a reputation for being a refuge for drugs, crimes and filth, with the projects being torn down as routinely as they are built. There is every indication that this entitlement will continue to expand in size regardless of its failures. Token local control over these expenditures will do nothing to solve the problem.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:84
Recently, the Secretary of HUD, using public funds to sue gun manufacturers, claimed this is necessary to solve the problems of crime which government housing perpetuates. If a government agency, which was never meant to exist in the first place under the Constitution, can expand their role into the legislative and legal matters without the consent of the Congress, we indeed have a serious problem on our hands. The programs are bad enough in themselves but the abuse of the rule of law and ignoring the separation of powers makes these expanding programs that much more dangerous to our entire political system and is a direct attack on personal liberty. If one cares about providing the maximum best housing for the maximum number of people, one must consider a free market approach in association with a sound, nondepreciating currency. We have been operating a public housing program directly opposite to this and along with steady inflation and government promotion of housing since the 1960s, the housing market has been grossly distorted. We can soon expect a major downward correction in the housing industry prompted by rising interest rates.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:85
Our attitude toward foreign policy has dramatically changed since the beginning of the century. From George Washington through Grover Cleveland, the accepted policy was to avoid entangling alliances. Although we spread our wings westward and southward as part of our manifest destiny in the 19th century, we accepted the Monroe Doctrine notion that European and Asians should stay out of our affairs in this hemisphere and we theirs. McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Spanish American war changed all that. Our intellectual and political leaders at the turn of the last century brought into vogue the interventionist doctrine setting the stage for the past 100 years of global military activism. From a country that once minded its own business, we now find ourselves with military personnel in more than 130 different countries protecting our modern day American empire. Not only do we have troops spread to the four corners of the Earth, we find Coast Guard cutters in the Mediterranean and around the world, our FBI in any country we choose, and the CIA in places Congress does not even know about. It is a truism that the state grows and freedom is diminished in times of war. Almost perpetual war in the 20th century has significantly contributed to steadily undermining our liberties while glorifying the state.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:86
In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:87
But even with the apparent success of our foreign policy and the military might we still have, the actual truth is that we have spread ourselves too thinly and may well have difficulty defending ourselves if we are ever threatened by any significant force around the world. At the close of this century, we find our military preparedness and morale at an all-time low. It will become more obvious as we move into the 21st century that the cost of maintaining this worldwide presence is too high and cutbacks will be necessary. The costs in terms of liberty lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens but instead is a threat to our liberties.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:88
Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I and World War II, Korea and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an antidraft attitude which is still alive today. Fortunately we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing once and for all the useless selective service system. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need, an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world. A return to the spirit of the republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:89
The U.S. monetary system. The U.S. monetary system during the 20th Century has dramatically changed from the one authorized by the Constitution. Only silver and gold were to be used in payment of debt, and no paper money was to be issued. In one of the few restrictions on the states, the Constitution prohibited them from issuing their own money, and they were to use only gold and silver in payment of debt. No Central Bank was authorized.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:90
The authors of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of inflation, having seen the harm associated with the destruction of the Continental currency. They never wanted to see another system that ended with the slogan, “it’s not worth a Continental.” They much preferred sound as a dollar, or as good as gold, as a description of our currency.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:91
Unfortunately, their concerns as they were reflected in the Constitution have been ignored and as this century closes we do not have a sound dollar as good as gold. The changes to our monetary system are by far the most significant economic events of the 20th Century. The gold dollar of 1900 is now nothing more than a Federal Reserve note with a promise by untrustworthy politicians and the central bankers to pay nothing for it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:92
No longer is there silver or gold available to protect the value of a steadily depreciating currency. This is a fraud of the worst kind and the type of a crime that would put a private citizen behind bars. But there have been too many special interests benefitting by our fiat currency, too much ignorance and too much apathy regarding the nature of money.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:93
We will surely pay the price for this negligence. The relative soundness of our currency that we enjoy as we move into the 21st Century will not persist. The instability in world currency market because of the dollar’s acceptance for so many years as the world’s currency, will cause devastating adjustments that Congress will eventually be forced to address.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:94
A transition from sound money to paper money did not occur instantaneously. It occurred over a 58 year period between 1913 and 1971, and the mischief continues today.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:95
Our Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System, established in 1913 after two failed efforts in the 19th Century, has been the driving force behind the development of our current fiat system. Since the turn of the century, we have seen our dollar lose 95 percent of its purchasing power, and it continues to depreciate. This is nothing less than theft, and those responsible should be held accountable.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:96
The record of the Federal Reserve is abysmal, yet at the close of the 20th Century, its chairman is held in extremely high esteem, with almost zero calls for study of sound money with the intent to once again have the dollar linked to gold.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:97
Ironically, the government and politicians are held in very low esteem, yet the significant trust in them to maintain the value of the currency is not questioned. But it should be.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:98
The reasons for rejecting gold and promoting paper are not mysterious, since quite a few special interests benefit. Deficit financing is much more difficult when there is no Central Bank available to monetize government debt. This gives license to politicians to spend lavishly on the projects that are most likely to get them reelected. War is more difficult to pursue if government has to borrow or tax the people for its financing. The Federal Reserve’s ability to create credit out of thin air to pay the bills run up by Congress establishes a symbiosis that is easy for the politician to love.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:99
It is also advantageous for the politicians to ignore the negative effects from such a monetary arrangement, since they tend to be hidden and disseminated. A paper money system attracts support from various economic groups. Bankers benefit from the float that they get with the fractional reserve banking that accompanies a fiat monetary system. Giant corporations who get to borrow large funds at below market interest rates enjoy the system and consistently call for more inflation and artificially low interest rates. Even the general public seems to benefit from the artificial booms brought about by credit creation, with lower interest rates allowing major purchases like homes and cars.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:100
The naive and uninformed fully endorse the current system because the benefits are readily available, while the disadvantages are hidden, delayed or not understood. The politicians, central bankers, commercial banks, big business borrowers, all believe their needs justify such a system.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:101
But the costs are many and the dangers are real. Because of easy credit throughout this century we have found out that financing war was easier than if taxes had to be raised. The many wars we have fought and the continuous military confrontations in smaller wars since Vietnam have made the 20th Century a bloody century. It is most likely that we would have pursued a less militaristic foreign policy if financing it had been more difficult.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:102
Likewise, financing the welfare state would have progressed much slower if our deficits could not have been financed by an accommodative Central Bank willing to inflate the money supply at will.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:103
There are other real costs as well that few are willing to believe are a direct consequence of Federal Reserve Board policy. Rampant inflation after World War I as well as the 1921 depression were a consequence of monetary policy during and following the war. The stock market speculation of the 1920s, the stock market collapse of 1929 and the depression of the 1930s causing millions to be unemployed, all resulted from Federal Reserve Board monetary mischief.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:104
Price inflation of the early 1950s was a consequence of monetary inflation required to fight the Korean War. Wage and price controls used then totally failed, yet the same canard was used during the Vietnam war in the early 1970s to again impose wage and price controls, with even worse results.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:105
All the price inflation, all the distortions, all the recessions and unemployment should be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is an accomplice in promoting all unnecessary war, as well as the useless and harmful welfare programs, with its willingness to cover Congress’ profligate spending habits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:106
Even though the Fed did great harm before 1971 after the total elimination of the gold-dollar linkage, the problems of deficit spending, welfare expansion and military-industrial complex influence have gotten much worse.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:107
Although many claim the 1990s have been great economic years, Federal Reserve Board action of the past decade has caused problems yet to manifest itself. The inevitable correction will come as the new century begins, and it is likely to be quite serious.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:108
The stage has been set. Rampant monetary growth has led to historic high asset inflation, massive speculation, overcapacity, malinvestment, excessive debt, a negative savings rate and a current account deficit of huge proportions. These conditions dictate a painful adjustment, something that would have never occurred under a gold standard.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:109
The special benefits of foreigners taking our inflated dollars for low priced goods and then loaning them back to us will eventually end. The dollar must fall, interest rates must rise, price inflation will accelerate, the financial asset bubble will burst, and a dangerous downturn in the economy will follow.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:110
There are many reasons to believe the economic slowdown will be worldwide, since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world. An illusion about our dollar’s value has allowed us to prop up Europe and Japan in this pass decade during a period of weak growth for them, but when reality sets in, economic conditions will deteriorate. Greater computer speed, which has helped to stimulate the boom of the 1990s, will work in the opposite direction as all of the speculative positions unwind, and that includes the tens of trillions of dollars in derivatives.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:111
There was a good reason the Federal Reserve rushed to rescue long-term capital management with a multibillion dollar bailout: It was unadulterated fear that the big correction was about to begin. Up until now, feeding the credit bubble with even more credit has worked, and is the only tool they have to fight the business cycle, but eventually control will be lost.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:112
A paper money system is dangerous economically and not constitutionally authorized. It is also immoral for government to counterfeit money, which dilutes the value of the currency and steals values from those who hold the currency and those who do not necessary benefit from its early circulation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:113
Not everyone benefits from the largesse of government spending programs or systematic debasement of the currency. The middle class, those not on welfare and not in the military industrial complex suffer the most from rising prices and job losses in the correction phase of the business cycle.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:114
Congress must someday restore sound money to America. It is mandated in the Constitution, it is economically sound to do so, and it is morally right to guarantee a standard of value for the money. Our oath of office obligates all Members of Congress to pay attention to this and participate in this needed reform.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:115
Police state. A police state is incompatible with liberty. One hundred years ago the Federal Government was responsible for enforcing very few laws. This has dramatically changed. There are now over 3,000 Federal laws and 10,000 regulations, employing hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats diligently enforcing them, with over 80,000 of the bureaucrats carrying guns.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:116
We now have an armed national police state, just as Jefferson complained of King George in the Declaration of Independence. “He has send hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:117
A lot of political and police power has shifted from the state and local communities to the Federal Government over the past 100 years. If a constitutional republic is desired and individual liberty is cherished, this concentration of power cannot be tolerated.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:118
Congress has been derelict in creating the agencies in the first place and ceding to the Executive the power to write regulations and even tax without Congressional approval. These agencies enforce their own laws and supervise their own administrative court system where citizens are considered guilty until proven innocent. The Constitution has been thrown out the window for all practical purposes, and although more Americans every day complain loudly, Congress does nothing to stop it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:119
The promoters of the bureaucratic legislation claim to have good intentions, but they fail to acknowledge the cost, inefficiency or the undermining of individual rights. Worker safety, environmental concerns, drug usage, gun control, welfarism, banking regulations, government insurance, health insurance, insurance against economic and natural disaster, and the regulation of fish and wildlife. Are just a few of the issues that prompts the unlimited use of Federal regulatory and legislative power to deal with perceived problems.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:120
But, inevitably, for every attempt to solve one problem, government creates two new ones. National politicians are not likely to volunteer a market or local government solution to a problem, or they will find out how unnecessary they really are.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:121
Congress’ careless attitude about the Federal bureaucracy and its penchant for incessant legislation have prompted serious abuse of every American citizen. Last year alone there were more than 42,000 civil forfeitures of property occurring without due process of law or conviction of a crime, and oftentimes the owners were not even charged with a crime.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:122
Return of illegally ceased property is difficult, and the owner is forced to prove his innocence in order to retrieve it. Even though many innocent Americans have suffered, these laws have done nothing to stop drug usage or change people’s attitude toward the IRS.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:123
Seizure and forfeitures only make the problems they are trying to solve that much worse. The idea that a police department under Federal law can seize property and receive direct benefit from it is an outrage. The proceeds can be distributed to the various police agencies without going through the budgetary process. This dangerous incentive must end.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:124
The national police state mentality has essentially taken over crime investigation throughout the country. Our local sheriffs are intimidated and frequently overruled by the national police. Anything worse than writing traffic tickets prompts swarms of Federal agents to the scene. We frequently see the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the BATF, Fish and Wildlife, the IRS, Federal marshals and even the Army involved in local law enforcement. They do not come to assist, but to take over.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:125
The two most notorious examples of federal abuse of police powers were seen at Ruby Ridge and Waco, where non-aggressive citizens were needlessly provoked and killed by government agents. At Waco, even Army tanks were used to deal with a situation that the local sheriff could have easily handled.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:126
These two incidents are well-known, but thousands of other similar abuses routinely occur with little publicity. The Federal police state seen in the action the Ruby Ridge and Waco hopefully is not a sign of things to come, but it could be, if we are not careful.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:127
If the steady growth of the Federal police power continues, the American republic cannot survive. The Congresses of the 20th Century have steadily undermined the principle that the government closest to home must deal with law and order, and not the Federal Government.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:128
The Federal courts also have significantly contributed to this trend. Hopefully in the new century our support for a national police state will be diminished. We have in this past century not only seen the undermining of the Federalism that the Constitution desperately tried to preserve, but the principles of separation of powers among the three branches of government has been severely compromised as well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:130
Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress’ obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 2:131
Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the few minutes I have left because I plan to complete my special order on this subject on Wednesday evening.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999

!DATE:
31 January 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime to include amongst the list of controlled substances that of GHB, a nutrient used for 25 years with beneficial effects for those suffering from cataplexy, insomnia, narcolepsy, depression, alcoholism, opiate addiction and numerous other conditions. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural limitation by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as being soft on drugs or rape, irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their overzealous approach.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:3
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts * * * threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:4
Even if GHB is as potentially dangerous as the bill’s advocates suggest, punishing possession of a useful substance because it potentially could be used in a harmful manner is as inconsistent with liberty as criminalizing the possession of handguns and cars.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:5
Moreover, this bill empowers Health and Human Services to engage in a national propaganda campaign on the dangers of GHB, creates a special unit with the Drug Enforcement Agency to assess abuse and trafficking in GHB, and authorizes the Justice Department to issue taxpayer-funded grants for the development of police officer field-test equipment. Aside from being further abuses of enumerated powers doctrine, the substantive questions raised by this legislation make these usurpations of state government authority even more reprehensible.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:6
Additionally, this Act undermines the recently enacted Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) at the expense of thousands of consumers who have safely used these natural metabolites of the amino acid GABA. According to practicing physician Ward Dean, West Point graduate and former Delta Force flight surgeon, HR 2130 appears to be a case of pharmaceutical-company-protectionism. Because the substances restricted under this act are natural, and hence, non-patentable, the pharmaceutical concerns lose market-share in areas for which GHB is a safer and less expensive means of treating numerous ailments. In a recent letter from Dr. Dean, he states:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:7
I have extensive experience in the clinical use of gamma hyudroxy butyric acid (GHB) . . . I have used these substances for over ten years on hundreds of patients (and have advised thousands through my books and articles on the subject). I have not had one instance reported to me of adverse effects in my patients. GHB is the safest, most nontoxic sleep inducing substance known. It has a wide range of other therapeutic uses. The therapeutic threshold for GHB is greater than almost any known pharmaceutical substance (the LD50 is 40–100 times greater than the sleep-inducing therapeutic dose of 3–6 grams!).


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:8
It is incongruous, to me, that a substance with such a wide range of documented benefits that is so overwhelmingly safe, can simultaneously be both a Schedule I and a Schedule III substance. GHB is a naturally occurring substance, present in all mammalian tissue as well as many foods. Consequently, everyone is in “possession” of this “controlled substance“—and every grocery store that sells meat is in “possession with intent to distribute.” These are not frivolous statements. In states where GHB is a Schedule I substance, there have been several instances where the charges have been dropped by the prosecution upon receipt of documentation that GHB is in beef from the state in question. I believe alleged violations of this proposed federal law will be equally difficult to successfully prosecute.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:9
Although GHB has been claimed to have been responsible for a small number of deaths, many of these cases are questionable. This is due to the fact that GHB is produced in significant quantities by the body post mortem, and is readily detectable in 96 out of 100 deceased persons even when no GHB has been consumed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 3:10
For each of the aforementioned procedural and substantive reasons, I must again oppose H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Adjounment

!DATE:
31 January 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, February 1, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., for morning hour debates.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2

!DATE:
2 February 2000

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I took a special order to discuss the importance of the American Republic and why it should be preserved. Today, I will continue with that special order.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:2
When it comes to executive orders, it has gotten completely out of hand. Executive orders may legitimately be used by a President to carry out his constitutionally authorized duties, but that would require far fewer orders than modern day Presidents have issued as the 20th century comes to a close, we find the executive branch willfully and arrogantly using the executive order to deliberately circumvent the legislative body, and bragging about it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:3
Although nearly 100,000 American battle deaths have occurred since World War II and both big and small wars have been fought almost continuously, there has not been a congressional declaration of war since 1941. Our Presidents now fight wars not only without explicit congressional approval but also in the name of the United Nations, with our troops now serving under foreign commanders.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:4
Our Presidents have assured us that U.N. authorization is all that is needed to send our troops into battle. The 1973 War Powers Resolution meant to restrict presidential war powers has either been ignored by our Presidents or used to justify war up to 90 days. The Congress and the people too often have chosen to ignore this problem, saying little about the recent bombing in Serbia. The continual bombing of Iraq which has now been going on for over 9 years is virtually ignored.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:5
If a President can decide on the issue of war without a vote of the Congress, a representative republic does not exist. Our President should not have the authority to declare national emergencies and they certainly should not have authority to declare martial law, a power the Congress has already granted to any future emergency.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:6
Economic and political crises can develop quickly and overly aggressive Presidents are only too willing to enhance their own power in dealing with them. Congress sadly throughout this century has been only too willing to grant authority to our Presidents at the sacrifice of its own.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:7
The idea of separate but equal branches of government has been forgotten and the Congress bears much of the responsibility for this trend. Executive powers in the past 100 years have grown steadily with the creation of agencies that write and enforce their own regulations and with Congress allowing the President to use executive orders without restraint.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:8
But in addition, there have been various other special vehicles that our Presidents use without congressional oversight. For example, the exchange stabilization fund set up during the depression has over $34 billion available to be used at the President’s discretion without congressional approval. This slush fund grows each year as it is paid interest on the securities it holds. It was instrumental in the $50 billion Mexican bailout in 1995.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:9
The CIA is so secretive that even those Congressmen privy to its operation have little knowledge of what this secret government actually does around the world.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:10
We know, of course, it has been involved in the past 50 years in assassinations and government overthrows on frequent occasions. The Federal Reserve operation, which works hand in hand with the administration, is not subject to congressional oversight. The Fed manipulates currency exchange rates, controls short-term interest rates, and fixes the gold price, all behind closed doors.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:11
Bailing out foreign governments, financial corporations and huge banks can all be achieved without congressional approval. One hundred years ago when we had a gold standard, credit could not be created out of thin air, and, because a much more limited government philosophy prevailed, this could not have been possible. Today it is hard to even document what goes on, let alone expect Congress to control it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:12
The people should be able to closely monitor the Government, but as our government grows in size and scope, it, the Government, seeks to monitor our every move. Attacks on our privacy are an incessant and always justified by citing so-called legitimate needs of the State, efficiency and law enforcement.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:13
Plans are laid for numerous data banks to record everyone’s activities. A national ID card using our Social Security number is the goal of many, and even though we achieved a significant delivery in delaying its final approval last year, the promoters will surely persist in their efforts.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:14
Plans are made for a medical data bank to be kept and used against our wishes. Job banks and details of all our lending activities continue to be of interest to all our national policy agencies, to make sure they know exactly where the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, and tax dodgers are and what they are doing, it is argued.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:15
For national security purposes, the Echelon system of monitoring all overseas phone calls has been introduced, yet the details of this program are not available to any inquiring Member of Congress.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:16
The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone’s activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:17
Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen was recently quoted as saying, “Terrorism is escalating to the point that U.S. citizens may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive forms of protection.” This is all in the name of taking care of us.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:18
As far as I am concerned, we could all do with a lot less Government protection and security. The offer of Government benevolence is the worst reason to sacrifice liberty, but we have seen a lot of that during the 20th century.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:19
Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:20
Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today’s casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:21
Ironically, the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad. This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 20th century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a deep concern for life and with the casual disposing of living human fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against fellow human beings.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:22
It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new mother in this circumstance is acting consistently, knowing that if an abortion is done just before a delivery, it is legally justified and the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax-supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not resolved in the favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:23
We can expect senseless violence to continue as the sense of worth is undermined. Children know that mothers and sisters, when distraught, have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Distraught teenagers in coping with this behavior are now prone to use violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This tendency is made worse because they see in this age of abortion their own lives as having less value, thus destroying self-esteem.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:24
The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life, not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers’ funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st century.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:25
A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:26
If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed and the elderly, a direction, unfortunately, in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia, that is, mercy killing, for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:27
Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law, and, indeed, it should and does at the State level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional. Essentially, all violent acts should be dealt with by the States, and, because we have allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more good State laws are overridden than good Federal laws written.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:28
Roe v. Wade federalized State abortion laws and ushered in the age of abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will do great harm by explicitly excluding the abortionist, thus codifying for the first time the Roe v. Wade concept and giving even greater legal protection to the abortionist.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:29
The responsibility of Congress is twofold: first, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong rightto- life beliefs to pay for abortions.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:30
Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a “right” cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:31
Much has changed over the past 100 years, where technology has improved our living standards. We find that our Government has significantly changed from one of limited scope to that of pervasive intervention.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:32
One hundred years ago it was generally conceded that one extremely important function of government was to enforce contracts made voluntarily in the marketplace. Today, government notoriously interferes with almost every voluntary economic transaction. Consumerism, labor laws, wage standards, hiring and firing regulations, political political correctness, affirmative action, the Americans with Disability Act, the Tax Code, and others place a burden on the two parties struggling to transact business.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:33
The EPA, OSHA and governmentgenerated litigation also interferes with voluntary contracts. At times, it seems a miracle that our society adapts and continues to perform reasonably well in spite of the many bureaucratic dictates.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:34
As the 20th century comes to a close, we see a dramatic change from a government that once served an important function by emphasizing the value of voluntary contracts to one that excessively interferes with them. Although the interference is greater in economic associations than in social, the principle is the same. Already we see the political correctness movement interfering with social and religious associations. Data banks are set up to keep records on everyone, especially groups with strong religious views and anybody to be so bold as to call himself a patriot. The notion that there is a difference between murder and murder driven by hate has established the principles of a thought crime, a dangerous trend indeed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:35
When the business cycle turns down, all the regulations and laws that interfere with economic and personal transactions will not be as well tolerated, and then the true cost will become apparent. It is under the conditions of a weak economy that such government interference generates a reaction to the anger over the rules that have been suppressed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:36
To the statist, the idea that average people can and should take care of themselves by making their own decisions and that they do not need Big Brother to protect them in everything they do is anathema to the way they think.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:37
The bureaucratic mindset is convinced that without the politicians’ effort, no one would be protected from anything, rejecting the idea of a free market economy out of ignorance or arrogance. This change in the 20th century has significantly contributed to the dependency of our poor on Government handouts, the recipients being convinced that they are entitled to help and that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. A serious loss of self-esteem and unhappiness results, even if the system in the short run seems to help them get by.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:38
There were no Federal laws at the end of the 19th century dealing with drugs or guns. Gun violence was rare and abuse of addictive substances was only a minor problem. Now, after 100 years of progressive Government intervention in dealing with guns and drugs, with thousands of laws and regulations, we have more gun violence and a huge drug problem.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:39
Before the social authoritarians decided to reform the gun and drug culture, they amended the Constitution enacting alcohol prohibition. Prohibition failed to reduce alcohol usage and a crime wave resulted. After 14 years, the American people demanded repeal of this social engineering amendment, and got it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:40
Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal Government’s effort to stop drug usage.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:41
In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:42
Our government pursued alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and confiscation of gold in the 1930s, so it is logical to conclude that our government is quite capable of confiscating all privatelyowned firearms. That has not yet occurred; but as we move into the next century, many in Washington advocate just that and would do it if they did not think the American people would revolt, just as they did against alcohol prohibition.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:43
Throughout this century, there has been a move toward drug prohibition starting with the Harrison Act of 1912. The first Federal marijuana law was pushed through by FDR in 1938, but the real war on drugs has been fought with intensity for the past 30 years.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:44
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and not only is there no evidence of reduced drug usage, we have instead seen a tremendous increase. Many deaths have occurred from overdoses of street drugs since there is no quality control or labeling. Crime as a consequence of drug prohibition has skyrocketed and our prisons are overflowing. Many prisoners are nonviolent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimum sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have nonviolent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:45
With drugs and needles illegal, the unintended consequence of the spread of AIDS and hepatitis through dirty needles has put a greater burden on the taxpayers who are forced to care for the victims.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:46
This ridiculous system that offers a jail cell for a sick addict rather than treatment has pushed many a young girl into prostitution to pay for the drugs priced hundreds of times higher than they are worth, but the drug dealers love the system and dread a new approach.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:47
When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear. The monster drug problem we have created is compounded by moves to tax citizens so government can hand out free needles to drug addicts who are breaking the law in hopes that there will be less spread of hepatitis and AIDS in order to reduce government health care costs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:48
This proposal shows how bankrupt we are at coming to grips with this problem, and it seems we will never learn.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:49
Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health consequences. Then we spend taxpayers’ money warning the people of its dangers, without stopping the subsidies.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:50
Government then pays for the care of those who choose to smoke, despite the known dangers and warnings. But it does not stop there. The trial lawyers’ lobby saw to it that the local government entities could sue tobacco companies for reimbursement of the excess costs that they were bearing in taking care of smoking-related illnesses, and the only way this could be paid for was to place a tax on those people who did not smoke.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:51
How could such silliness go on for so long? For one reason. We as a nation have forgotten the basic precept of a free society, that all citizens must be responsible for their own acts. If one smokes and gets sick, that is the problem of the one making the decision to smoke or take any other risk for that matter, not the innocent taxpayers who have already been forced to pay for the tobacco subsidies and government health warning ads.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:52
Beneficiaries of this monstrous policy have been tobacco farmers, tobacco manufacturers, politicians, bureaucrats, smokers, health organizations, and physicians, and especially the trial lawyers. Who suffers? The innocent taxpayers that have no choice in the matter and who acted responsibly and chose not to smoke.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:53
Think of what it would mean if we followed this simple logic and implemented a Federal social program, similar to the current war on smoking, designed to reduce the spread of AIDS within the gay community. Astoundingly, we have done the opposite by making AIDS a politically correct disease. There was certainly a different attitude a hundred years ago regarding those with sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis compared to the special status given AIDS victims today.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:54
It is said that an interventionist economy is needed to make society fair to everyone. We need no more government fairness campaigns. Egalitarianism never works and inevitably penalizes the innocent. Government in a free society is supposed to protect the innocent, encourage self-reliance and impose equal justice while allowing everyone to benefit from their own effort and suffer the consequences of their own acts. A free and independent people need no authoritarian central government dictating eating, drinking, gambling, sexual, or smoking habits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:55
When the rules are required, they should come from the government closest to home as it once did prior to America’s ill-fated 20th Century experiment with alcohol prohibition. Let us hope we show more common sense in the 21st Century in these matters than we did in the 20th.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:56
A compulsive attitude by politicians to regulate nonviolent behavior may be well intentioned but leads to many unintended consequences. Legislation passed in the second half of the 20th Century dealing with drugs and personal habits has been the driving force behind the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws and the loss of financial privacy.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:57
The war on drugs is the most important driving force behind the national police state. The excuse given for calling in the Army helicopters and tanks at the Waco disaster was that the authorities had evidence of an amphetamine lab on the Davidian property. This was never proven, but nevertheless it gave the legal cover but not the proper constitutional authority for escalating the attack on the Davidians which led to the senseless killing of so many innocent people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:58
The attitudes surrounding this entire issue needs to change. We should never turn over the job of dealing with bad habits to our Federal Government. That is a recipe for disaster.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:59
America has not only changed technologically in the last 100 years but our social attitudes and personal philosophies have changed as well. We have less respect for life and less love for liberty. We are obsessed with material things, along with rowdy and raucous entertainment. Needs and wants have become rights for both poor and rich. The idea of instant gratification too often guides our actions, and when satisfaction is not forthcoming anger and violence breaks out. Road rage and airline passenger rage are seen more frequently. Regardless of fault, a bad outcome in almost anything, even if beyond human control, will prompt a lawsuit. Too many believe they deserve to win the lottery and a lawsuit helps the odds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:60
Unfortunately, the only winners too often are the lawyers hyping the litigation. Few Americans are convinced anymore that productive effort is the most important factor in economic success and personal satisfaction. One did not get rich in the 1990s investing in companies that had significant or modest earnings. The most successful investors bought companies that had no earnings and the gambling paid off big. This attitude cannot create perpetual wealth and must some day end.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:61
Today, financial gurus are obsessed with speculation in the next initial public offering and express no interest in the cause of liberty without which markets cannot exist.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:62
Lying and cheating are now acceptable by the majority. This was not true 100 years ago when moral standards were higher. The October 1999 issue of U.S. News and World Report reveals that 84 percent of college students believe cheating is necessary to get ahead in today’s world, and 90 percent are convinced there is no price to pay for the cheating. Not surprisingly, 90 percent of college students do not believe politicians, and an equal number of percentage believes the media cheats as well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:63
There is no way to know if this problem is this bad in the general population, but these statistics indicate our young people do not trust our politicians or media. Trust has been replaced with a satisfaction in the materialism that speculative stock markets, borrowing money, and a spendthrift government can generate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:64
What happens to our society if the material abundance which we enjoy is ephemeral and human trust is lost? Social disorder will surely result and there will be a clamor for a more authoritarian government. This scenario may indeed threaten the stability of our social order and significantly undermine all our constitutional protections, but there is no law or ethics committee that will solve this problem of diminishing trust and honesty. That is a problem of the heart, mind and character to be dealt with by each individual citizen.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:65
The importance of the family unit today has been greatly diminished compared to the close of the 19th Century. Now, fewer people get married, more divorces occur and the number of children born out of wedlock continues to rise. Tax penalties are placed on married couples. Illegitimacy and single parenthood are rewarded by government subsidies, and we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and -wife couples to qualify for welfare handouts.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:66
The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and heterophobia. Freedom of speech is still cherished in America but the political correctness movement has seriously undermined dissent on our university campuses. A conservative or libertarian black intellectual is clearly not treated with the same respect afforded an authoritarian black spokesman.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:67
We now hear of individuals being sent to psychiatrists when personal and social views are crude or out of the ordinary. It was commonplace in the Soviet system to incarcerate political dissenters in so-called mental institutions. Those who received a Soviet government designation of socially undesirable elements were stripped of their rights. Will this be the way we treat political dissent in the future?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:68
We hear of people losing their jobs because of socially undesirable thoughts or for telling off-color jokes. Today, sensitivity courses are routinely required in America to mold social thinking for the simplest of infractions. The thought police are all around us. It is a bad sign.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:69
Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is ever even permitted, without derision by the media, the university intellectuals and the politicians, to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them while ushering in a 45-year saber-rattling, dangerous Cold War period.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:70
Free speech is permitted in our universities for those who do not threaten the status quo of welfarism, globalism, corporatism, and a financial system that provides great benefit to the powerful special interests. If a university professor does not follow the party line, he does not receive tenure.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:71
We find ourselves at the close of this century realizing all our standards have been undermined. A monetary standard for our money is gone. The dollar is whatever the government tells us it is. There is no definition and no promise to pay anything for the notes issued ad infinitum by the government. Standards for education are continually lowered, deemphasizing excellence. Relative ethics are promoted and moral absolutes are ridiculed. The influence of religion on our standards is frowned upon and replaced by secular humanistic standards. The work ethic has been replaced by a welfare ethic based on need, not effort. Strict standards required for an elite military force are gone and our lack of readiness reflects this.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:72
Standards of behavior of our professional athletes seem to reflect the rules followed in the ring by the professional wrestlers where anything goes. Managed medical care driven by government decrees has reduced its quality and virtually ruined the doctor-patient relationship.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:73
Movie and TV standards are so low that our young people’s senses are totally numbed by them. Standards of courtesy on highways, airplanes, and shops are seriously compromised and at times leads to senseless violence.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:74
With the acceptance of abortion, our standards for life have become totally arbitrary as they have become for liberty. Endorsing the arbitrary use of force by our government morally justifies the direct use of force by disgruntled groups not satisfied with the slower government process. The standards for honesty and truth have certainly deteriorated during the past 100 years.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:75
Property ownership has been undermined through environmental regulations and excessive taxation. True ownership of property no longer exists. There has been a systematic undermining of legal and constitutional principles once followed and respected for the protection of individual liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:76
A society cannot continue in a state of moral anarchy. Moral anarchy will lead to political anarchy. A society without clearly understood standards of conduct cannot remain stable any more than an architect can design and build a sturdy skyscraper with measuring instruments that change in value each day. We recently lost a NASA space probe because someone failed to convert inches to centimeters, a simple but deadly mistake in measuring physical standards. If we as a people debase our moral standards, the American Republic will meet a similar fate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:77
Many Americans agree that this country is facing a moral crisis that has been especially manifested in the closing decade of the 21st century. Our President’s personal conduct, the characters of our politicians in general, the caliber of the arts, movies, and television, and our legal system have reflected this crisis.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:78
The personal conduct of many of our professional athletes and movie stars has been less than praiseworthy. Some politicians, sensing this, have pushed hard to write and strictly enforce numerous laws regarding personal nonviolent behavior with the hope that the people will become more moral.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:79
This has not happened, but has filled our prisons. This year it will cost more than $40 billion to run our prison system. The prison population, nearing 2 million, is up 70 percent in the last decade, and two-thirds of the inmates did not commit an act of violence. Mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws have been instrumental in this trend.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:80
Laws clearly cannot alter moral behavior, and if it is attempted, it creates bigger problems. Only individuals with moral convictions can make society moral. But the law does reflect the general consensus of the people regarding force and aggression, which is a moral issue. Government can be directed to restrain and punish violent aggressive citizens, or it can use aggressive force to rule the people, redistribute wealth, and make citizens follow certain moral standards, and force them to practice certain personal habits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:81
Once government is permitted to do the latter, even in a limited sense, the guiding principle of an authoritarian government is established, and its power and influence over the people will steadily grow, at the expense of personal liberty. No matter how wellintentioned, the authoritarian government always abuses its powers. In its effort to achieve an egalitarian society, the principle of inequality that freedom recognizes and protects is lost.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:82
Government, then, instead of being an obstruction to violence, becomes the biggest perpetrator. This invites all the special interests to manipulate the monopoly and evil use of government power. Twenty thousand lobbyists currently swarm Washington seeking special advantage. That is where we find ourselves today.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:83
Although government cannot and should not try to make people better in the personal, moral sense, proper law should have a moral, nonaggressive basis to it: no lying, cheating, stealing, killing, injuring, or threatening. Government then would be limited to protecting contracts, people, and property, while guaranteeing all personal nonviolent behavior, even the controversial.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:84
Although there are degrees in various authoritarian societies as to how much power a government may wield, once government is given the authority to wield power, it does so in an ever-increasing manner. The pressure to use government authority to run the economy in our lives depends on several factors. These include a basic understanding of personal liberty, respect for a constitutional republic, economic myths, ignorance, and misplaced good intentions.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:85
In every society there are always those waiting in the wings for an opportunity to show how brilliant they are as they lust for power, convinced that they know what is best for everyone. But the defenders of liberty know that what is best for everyone is to be left alone, with a government limited to stopping aggressive behavior.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:86
The 20th century has produced socialist dictators the world over, from Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. More than 200 million people died as a result of bad ideas of these evil men. Each and every one of these dictators despised the principle of private property ownership, which then undermined all the other liberties cherished by the people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:87
It is argued that the United States and now the world have learned a third way, something between extreme socialism and mean-spirited capitalism. But this is a dream. The so-called friendly third way endorses 100 percent the principle that government authority can be used to direct our lives and the economy. Once this is accepted, the principle that man alone is responsible for his salvation and his life on Earth, which serves as the foundation for free market capitalism, is rejected.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:88
The third way of friendly welfarism or soft fascism, where government and businesses are seen as partners, undermines and sets the stage for authoritarian socialism. Personal liberty cannot be preserved if we remain on the course at which we find ourselves at the close of the 20th century.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:89
In our early history, it was understood that a free society embraced both personal civil liberties and economic liberties. During the 20th century this unified concept of freedom has been undermined. Today we have one group talking about economic freedom while interfering with our personal liberty, and the other group condemning economic liberty while preaching the need to protect personal civil liberties. Both groups reject liberty 50 percent of the time. That leaves very few who defend liberty all the time. Sadly, there are too few in this country who today understand and defend liberty in both areas.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:90
A common debate that we hear occurs over how we can write laws protecting normal speech and at the same time limiting commercial speech, as if they were two entirely different things. Many Americans wonder why Congress pays so little attention to the Constitution and are bewildered as to how so much inappropriate legislation gets passed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:91
But the Constitution is not entirely ignored. It is used correctly at times when it is convenient and satisfies a particular goal, but never consistently across-the-board on all legislation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:92
Two, the Constitution is all too frequently made to say exactly what the authors of special legislation want it to say. That is the modern way language can be made relative to our times, but without a precise understanding and respect for the supreme law of the land, that is, the Constitution, it no longer serves as the guide for the rule of law. In its place, we have substituted the rule of man and the special interests.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:93
That is how we have arrived at the close of this century without a clear understanding or belief in the cardinal principles of the Constitution: the separation of powers and the principle of Federalism. Instead, we are rushing toward a powerful executive, centralized control, and a Congress greatly diminished in importance.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:94
Executive orders, agency regulations, Federal court rulings, unratified international agreements, direct government, economy, and foreign policy. Congress has truly been reduced in status and importance over the past 100 years. When the people’s voices are heard, it is done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide how far they can go without stirring up the people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:95
But this is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do. It was meant to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and influential was never meant to rule the people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:96
We may not have a king telling us which trees we can cut down today, but we do have a government bureaucracy and a pervasive threat of litigation by radical environmentalists who keep us from cutting our own trees, digging a drainage ditch, or filling a puddle, all at the expense of private property ownership.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:97
The key element in a free society is that individuals should wield control of their lives, receiving the benefits and suffering the consequences of all their acts. Once the individual becomes a pawn of the state, whether a monarchor a majority-ruled state, a free society can no longer endure.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:98
We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual liberty is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:99
Freedom too often is rejected, especially in the midst of plenty, when there is a belief that government largesse will last forever. This is true because it is tough to accept personal responsibility, practice the work ethic, and follow the rules of peaceful coexistence with our fellow man.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:100
Continuous vigilance against the would-be tyrants who promise security at minimum cost must be maintained. The temptation is great to accept the notion that everyone can be a beneficiary of the caring state and a winner of the lottery or a class action lawsuit. But history has proven there is never a shortage of authoritarians, benevolent, of course, quite willing to tell others how to live for their own good. A little sacrifice of personal liberty is a small price to pay for long-time security, it is too often argued.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:101
I have good friends who are in basic agreement with my analysis of the current state of the American republic, but argue it is a waste of time and effort to try and change the direction in which we are going. No one will listen, they argue. Besides, the development of a strong, centralized, authoritarian government is too far along to reverse the trends of the 20th century. Why waste time in Congress when so few people care about liberty, they ask? The masses, they point out, are interested only in being taken care of, and the elite want to keep receiving the special benefits allotted to them through special interest legislation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:102
I understand the odds, and I am not naive enough to believe the effort to preserve liberty is a cake walk. I am very much aware of my own limitations in achieving this goal. But ideas based on sound and moral principles do have consequences, and powerful ideas can make major consequences beyond our wildest dreams.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:103
Our Founders clearly understood this, and they knew they would be successful, even against the overwhelming odds they faced. They described this steady confidence they shared with each other when hopes were dim as “divine Providence.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:104
Good ideas can have good results, and we must remember, bad ideas can have bad results. It is crucial to understand that vague and confusing idealism produces mediocre results, especially when it is up against a determined effort to promote an authoritarian system that is sold to the people as conciliatory and nonconfrontational, a compromise, they say, between the two extremes.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:105
But it must be remembered that no matter how it is portrayed, when big government systematically and steadily undermines individual rights and economic liberty, it is still a powerful but negative idea and it will not fade away easily.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:106
Ideas of liberty are a great threat to those who enjoy planning the economy and running other peoples’ lives. The good news is that our numbers are growing. More Americans than ever before are very much aware of what is going on in Washington and how, on a daily basis, their liberties are being undermined. There are more intellectual think tanks than ever before promoting the market economy, private property ownership, and personal liberty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:107
The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed, and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. A smoldering resentment against the unfairness of government and efforts to force equality on us can inspire violence, but instead, it should be used to encourage an honest system of equal justice based on individual, not collective, rights.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:108
Sentiment is moving in the direction of challenging the status quo of the welfare and international warfare state. The Internet has given hope to millions who have felt their voices were not being heard, and this influence is just beginning. The three major networks and conventional government propaganda no longer control the information now available to everyone with a computer.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:109
The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would guarantee privacy on the Internet.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:110
These battles have just begun. If the civil libertarians and free market proponents do not win this fight to keep the Internet free and private, the tools for undermining authoritarian government will be greatly reduced. Victory for liberty will probably elude us for decades.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:111
The excuse they will give for controlling the Internet will be to stop pornography, catch drug dealers, monitor child molesters, and do many other socalled good things. We should not be deceived. We have faced tough odds, but to avoid battle or believe there is a place to escape to, someplace else in the world, would concede victory to those who endorse authoritarian government.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:112
The grand experiment in human liberty must not be abandoned. A renewed hope and understanding of liberty is what we need as we move into the 21st century. A perfectly free society we know cannot be achieved, and the ideal perfect socialism is an oxymoron. Pursuing that goal throughout the 20th century has already caused untold suffering.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:113
The clear goal of a free society must be understood and sought, or the vision of the authoritarians will face little resistance and will easily fill the void.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:114
There are precise goals Congress should work for, even under today’s difficult circumstances. It must preserve in the best manner possible voluntary options to failed government programs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:115
We must legalize freedom to the maximum extent possible.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:116
1. Complete police protection is impossible; therefore, we must preserve the right to own weapons in self-defense.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:117
2. In order to maintain economic protection against Government debasement of the currency, gold ownership must be preserved, something taken away from the American people during the Depression.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:118
3. Adequate retirement protection by the Government is limited, if not ultimately impossible. We must allow every citizen the opportunity to control all of his or her retirement funds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:119
4. Government education has clearly failed. We must guarantee the right of families to home school or send their kids to private schools and help them with tax credits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:120
5. Government snoops must be stopped. We must work to protect all privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the national ID card, and stop the development of all Government data banks.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:121
6. Federal police functions are unconstitutional and increasingly abusive. We should disarm all Federal bureaucrats and return the police function to local authorities.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:122
7. The Army was never meant to be used in local policing activities. We must firmly prevent our Presidents from using the military in local law enforcement operations, which is now being planned for under the guise of fighting terrorism.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:123
8. Foreign military intervention by our Presidents in recent years to police the American empire is a costly failure. Foreign military intervention should not be permitted without explicit congressional approval.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:124
9. Competition in all elections should be guaranteed, and the monopoly powers gained by the two major parties through unfair signature requirements, high fees, and campaign donation controls should be removed. Competitive parties should be allowed in all government- sponsored debate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:125
10. We must do whatever is possible to help instill a spirit of love for freedom and recognize that our liberties depend on responsible individuals, not the group or the collective or the society as a whole. The individual is the building block of a free and prosperous social order.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:126
The Founders knew full well that the concept of liberty was fragile and could easily be undermined. They worried about the dangers that lay ahead. As we move into the new century, it is an appropriate time to rethink the principles upon which a free society rest.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:127
Jefferson, concerned about the future wrote, “Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic, but will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:128
“They,” that he refers to are “we.” And the future is now. Freedom, Jefferson knew, would produce plenty, and with material abundance it is easy to forget the responsibility the citizens of a free society must assume if freedom and prosperity are to continue.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:129
The key element for the Republic’s survival for Jefferson was the character of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for others, and their liberty and their property. It is the character of the people that determines the proper role for government in a free society.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:130
Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to “good manners” as the vital ingredient that a free society needs to survive. Adams said, “Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:131
The message is clear. If we lose our love of liberty and our manners become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic. But character is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The choice is ours alone, and our leaders should show the way.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:132
Some who are every bit as concerned as I am about our future and the pervasive corrupt influence in our Government in every aspect of our lives offer other solutions. Some say to solve the problem all we have to do is write more detailed laws dealing with campaign finance reform, ignoring how this might undermine the principles of liberty. Similarly, others argue that what is needed is merely to place tighter restrictions on the lobbyists in order to minimize their influence. But they fail to realize this undermines our constitutional right to petition our Government for redress of grievances.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:133
And there are others with equally good intentions that insist on writing even more laws and regulations punishing nonviolent behavior in order to teach good manners and instill character. But they fail to see that tolerating nonviolent behavior, even when stupid and dangerous to one’s own self, is the same as our freedom to express unpopular political and offensive ideas and to promote and practice religion in any way one chooses.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:134
Resorting to writing more laws with the intent of instilling good character and good manners in the people is anathema to liberty. The love of liberty can come only from within and is dependent on a stable family and a society that seeks the brotherhood of man through voluntary and charitable means.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:135
And there are others who believe that government force is legitimate in promoting what they call “fair redistribution.” The proponents of this course have failed to read history and instead adhere to economic myths. They ignore the evidence that these efforts to help their fellow man will inevitably fail. Instead, it will do the opposite and lead to the impoverishment of many.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:136
But more importantly, if left unchecked, this approach will destroy liberty by undermining the concept of private property ownership and free markets, the bedrock of economic prosperity.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:137
None of these alternatives will work. Character and good manners are not a government problem. They reflect individual attitudes that can only be changed by individuals themselves. Freedom allows virtue and excellence to blossom. When government takes on the role of promoting virtue, illegitimate government force is used and tyrants quickly appear on the scene to do the job. Virtue and excellence become illusive, and we find instead that the government officials become corrupt and freedom is lost, the very ingredient required for promoting virtue, harmony, and the brotherhood of man.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 5:138
Let us hope and pray that our political focus will soon shift toward preserving liberty and individual responsibility and away from authoritarianism. The future of the American Republic depends on it. Let us not forget that the American dream depends on keeping alive the spirit of liberty.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 10, 2000

!TITLE:
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E115]




      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000. 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 also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:2
    * 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 limits 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.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:3
    * 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.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:4
    * 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 affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:5
    * 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.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 6:6
    * 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.



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 10, 2000

!TITLE:
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E117]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 7:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record and highly recommend to all of my colleagues Bill Evers’ ‘Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars,’ which recently appeared in the Weekly Standard. Mr. Evers’ provides an excellent overview of the controversy created by the Department of Education’s endorsement of ten ‘discovery-learning’ programs (also known as ‘new, new math’ or ‘fuzzy math’). Concerns have been raised that ‘fuzzy math’ de-emphasizes traditional mathematics in favor of encouraging children to ‘discover’ math without the guidance of a teacher. Under some ‘new, new math’ programs traditional teaching is discouraged on the grounds that teachers may harm a child’s self-esteem by, for example, correcting a child’s ‘discovery’ that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, this type of ‘education’ diminishes a child’s future prospects, after all, few employers value high self-esteem more than the ability to add!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 7:2
    * Mr. Evers’ article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ‘new math’ did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 7:3
    * The solution to America’s education crisis lies in returning to the Constitution and restoring parental control. In order to restore true parental control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child’s education related expenses. Unlike other so-called ‘reform’ proposals, my bill would allow parents considerably more freedom in determining how to educate their children. It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 7:4
    * The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets their child’s special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to read Mr. Evers’ article on the dangers of the federal endorsement of ‘fuzzy math’ and support my efforts to improve education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 7:5
    * Williamson Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, an adjunct professor of political science at Santa Clara University, a research fellow at the Independent Institute and an adjunct fellow of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mr. Evers has served on the California State Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards and he is currently a member of the California State Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment system’s Content Review Panels for history and mathematics as well as the Advisory Board of the Californian History-Social Science Project. Mr. Evers is the editor of What’s Gone Wrong in America’s Classrooms (Hoover Institution Press, 1998). Mr. Evers has been published in numerous scholarly and popular periodicals, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Christian Science Monitor.

(BY BILL EVERS)




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:6
In early 1998, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley called for a ‘cease-fire’ in the math wars between the proponents of solid content and the proponents of discovery-learning methods. He said he was ‘very troubled’ by ‘the increasing polarization and fighting’ about how and which mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through high school.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:7
Despite this call for a cease-fire, the U.S. Department of Education endorsed ten discovery-learning programs in October 1999. This federal imprimatur should not be allowed to disguise the fact that content (such as dividing fractions and multiplying multidigit numbers) is missing from these federally approved programs and that there is no good evidence that they are effective. Discovery-learning math is often called by its critics ‘fuzzy math’ or ‘no-correct-answer math.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:8
In response to the Department of Education, about two hundred mathematicians and scientists signed an open letter to Secretary Riley, which was published in the Washington Post on November 18, 1999 (see letter at www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm.) The signers, who included Nobel laureates and some of the country’s most eminent mathematicians, didn’t like the Department of Education’s new equation: Federal Math=Fuzzy Math. The letter asked Riley to withdraw the federal endorsements. The news stories that followed got at the essence of the debate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:9
Steve Leinward of the Connecticut Department of Education was on the U.S. Department of Education’s panel that picked the math programs that would receive federal approval. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Leinward defended the approved programs as the least common denominator — ‘a common core of math that all students can master.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:10
Leinward is not saying that the federally approved programs cover the material taught in too-performing countries such as Japan or Hungary or that the programs contain complete coverage of elementary and secondary school math. What he and his fellow panelists want is a watered-down program that all American students — as currently trained — can master.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:11
Mathematics professor David Klein of California State University at Northridge is a proponent of solid content. He is quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying that algebra is the key course for students, the gateway to success in mathematics and to success in college in general. Leinward says that Klein’s algebra-for-all position is elitist.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:12
Here we have the central difference between the two sides. The rigorous curriculum side says that, like Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, we can have algebra for all, preparing students for technical careers and college-level work. The water-it-down side says U.S. teachers and students aren’t capable of teaching and learning algebra.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 7:13
These federal recommendations are for kindergarten through high school, which has serious consequences. In essence, the U.S. Department of Education, by making these endorsements, is closing the gate on going to college or even on technical blue-collar jobs for many students. And it is closing that gate as early as kindergarten.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 15, 2000

!TITLE:
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR


------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. 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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 8:2
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 8:3
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 8:4
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, it 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 taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 8:5
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people’s money.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 16, 2000

!TITLE:
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT


------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 9:2
One of the most egregious portions 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 this, 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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 9:3
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 9:4
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to review this new legislation and to join me in this battle by cosponsoring this pro-life legislation.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 16, 2000

!TITLE:
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think of this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money, and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 10:2
It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in this Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 10:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 10:4
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 1, 2000

!TITLE:
SENIOR CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 11:1
# Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social Security ‘earnings limitations.’ During a time when an increasing number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 11:2
When the government takes money every month from people’s paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to work.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 11:3
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 11:4
The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social Security pensions.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 11:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support for the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the ‘earnings limitation’ will help ensure that America’s seniors can continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their ‘golden years.’ I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219).


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 1, 2000

!TITLE:
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. 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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:2
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:3
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:4
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 an unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of international bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:5
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 Senate the sole power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United States government and other governments.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:6
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:7
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:8
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:9
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:10
I can, however, say that the United States of America ought to withdraw its membership and funding from the WTO immediately.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:11
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:12
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 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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:13
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:14
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.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 12:15
Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 2, 2000

!TITLE:
TRIBUTE TO THE VICTORIA HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY CHEERLEADERS OF VICTORIA, TEXAS

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the winners of the National High School Cheerleading Championship sponsored by the Universal Cheerleaders Association held in Orlando, Florida — the Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders of Victoria, Texas. This victory follows a history of winning third place in 1997, and second place in 1998.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:2
By taking the championship in 1999, Victoria High became the first Texas squad to ever win the National Championship. With this second impressive win, the VHS Cheerleaders became the first squad in the nation to win back-to-back championships in the Medium Varsity Division of the UCA Nationals.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:3
The competition was fierce, with the Regional competition starting in November, 1999, when the squad’s first place win put them in line to take on 65 of the best of the best in Nationals. The teen’s first trip before the judges in the preliminary round earned them a shot at the national championship, where they gave a stellar performance, shutting out their competition consisting of the top 14 squads in the country.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:4
I am proud to recognize this very talented group of students for excelling in this very demanding sport. But I am equally proud to applaud their selfless efforts in representing their school through community service to the American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the Texas Zoo of Victoria. They visit local elementary schools and participate in pep rallies during Red Ribbon Week and TAAS week. Each student is also required to maintain an 80 overall average while passing each class. They are to be commended for participating in these additional activities.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:5
National championships do not come along by accident. Many, many hours of practice and training must take place to achieve them. Leadership is also a key ingredient. I want to recognize the VHS teachers, Denise Neel and Terese Reese, who helped make this goal a reality. Additionally, I commend the parents of each cheerleader who, no doubt, contributed greatly to this success.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:6
This group of students deserve the honor they have earned. I commend each one of them: Laurie Beck — Co-Head Cheerleader, Amy Reinmann — Co-Head Cheerleader, Vanessa Bludau, Amber Clemmons, Sara Dickson, Courtney Horecka, Haley Kolle, Lacey Reed, Amanda Rodriguez, Karla Sterne, Sarah Carville, Melissa Keefe, Chelsie Luhn, Julia McLarry, Rachel Schmitt, and Ashley Valentine.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 13:7
I am proud to have these two-time national champions in the 14th Congressional District of Texas, and trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating them on this impressive achievement.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Removal Of Name Of Member As Cosponsor Of House Joint Resolution 89 And House Joint Resolution 90

!DATE:
9 March 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER) be removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 89 and H.J. Res. 90.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 9, 2000

!TITLE:
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H891]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:2
    * Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ‘wedge’ between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the ‘minimum wage.’ This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65 — why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:3
    * Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:4
    * Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens’ rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens ‘you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:5
    * Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing its misguided and unscientific ‘ergonomics’ regulation. Congress should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals the Post Office’s CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying with postal regulations!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:6
    * Because one of the most important factors in getting a good job is a good education, Congress should also strengthen the education system by returning control over the education dollar to the American people. A good place to start is with the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut (H.R. 936), which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for donations to private school scholarships or for cash or in-kind contributions to public schools.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:7
    * I am also cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act (H.R. 2750), which makes college tuition tax deductible for middle-and-working class Americans, as well as several pieces of legislation to provide increased tax deductions and credits for education savings accounts for both higher education and K-12. In addition, I am cosponsoring several pieces of legislation, such as H.R. 1824 and H.R. 838, to provide tax credits for employers who provide training for their employees.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:8
    * My education agenda will once again make America’s education system the envy of the world by putting the American people back in control of education and letting them use more of their own resources for education at all levels. Combining education tax cuts, for K-12, higher education and job training, with regulatory reform and small business tax cuts such as those Congress passed earlier today is the best way to help all Americans, including those currently on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, prosper.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:9
    * However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America’s, are doomed to fail.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 15:10
    * In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.








2000 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 9, 2000

!TITLE:
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:1
    * Mr. Speaker, as this is Texas Public Schools Week, I wanted to take a moment to offer my thanks to the parents and teachers of my district, and those across Texas, for all of their hard work to make sure our children get the best education possible.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:2
    * Unfortunately, Congress and the federal bureaucracy continue to strip authority away from parents, teachers and local school boards. While Congress promises the American people that expansions of federal control over local schools will create an educational utopia, the fact is that the federal education bureaucracy has only increased the difficulties of educating the next generation and diverted resources away from the classroom. For example, while the federal government provides less than 10% of education funding, many school districts find that more than 50% of their paperwork is generated by federal mandates and the hoops local school officials must jump through in order to get Washington to return a ridiculously small portion of taxpayer money to local public schools.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:3
    * More than thirty years of centralized control of education has resulted in failure and frustrated parents. It is time for Washington to return control of the nation’s school system to the people who best know the needs of the children — local communities and parents. The key to doing so is to return control of the education dollar back to the American people.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:4
    * In order to give control of education back to the people, I have introduced the “Family Education Freedom Act” (HR 935). This bill provides parents with a $3,000 per-child tax credit for K-12 education expenses.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:5
    * The “Family Education Freedom Act” fulfills the American people’s goal of greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education, rather than forcing them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:6
    * The “Family Education Freedom Act” will help parents who send their children to public schools strengthen their child’s public education. Parents may use the credit to improve schools by helping to finance the purchase of education tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:7
    * I have also introduced the “Teacher Tax Cut” (HR 937), which provides a $1,000 tax credit for every teacher in America. Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. Yet, America’s teachers remain underpaid compared to other professionals. Adding insult to injury, teachers often have to use their own money to purchase supplies for their classroom. For example, according to the Association of Texas Professional Educators, many Texas teachers spent between $50-300 of their own money on school supplies during the 1998-99 school year!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:8
    * Since America’s teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed, the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes. Raising teachers’ take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit lets teachers know the American people and the Congress respect their work and encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:9
    * I have also introduced the “Education Improvement Tax Cut” (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extracurricular programs. This legislation encourages local citizens and community leaders to help strengthen local public schools. The “Education Improvement Tax Cut Act” also insures that education funding matches the needs of individual communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:10
    * Mr. Speaker, my education agenda of returning control over the education dollar to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education. First of all, unlike plans to expand the federal education bureaucracy, my bills are free of “guidelines” and restrictions that dilute the actual number of dollars spent to educate a child. In addition, the money does not have to go through federal and state bureaucrats, each of whom gets a cut, before it reaches the classroom. Returning power over the education dollar will also free public school teachers, administrators and principals from having to comply with numerous federal mandates. Instead, school personnel and officials may work with parents and other concerned citizens to make sure all children are receiving the best possible education.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 16:11
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again extend my thanks to all those who are involved in the education of our nation’s children. I also call upon my colleagues to help strengthen public schools by returning control over the education dollar to parents and other concerned citizens, as well as raising teacher salaries by cutting their taxes, so that the American people can once again make the American education system the envy of the world.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 22, 2000

!TITLE:
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1197]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:1
    * Mr. Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government’s constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial “enumerated powers doctrine” transgression.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:2
    * In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March 2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract. More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts, of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:3
    * Today we are faced with yet another bill which provides mandates for which neither constitutional authority exists nor for which there is any reason to believe that such mandates will be observed by the Department of Energy any more than the previously legislated mandates have been observed. Additionally, this bill further expands the authority of the constitutionally- illegitimate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and further involves the EPA in the process which could only exponentially increase the difficulty and time required to actually accomplish the legislation’s stated purpose.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:4
    * These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must necessarily be asked and answered is “whether one constitutionally illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to justify the second?” The answer to this question must always be answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return — quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been filed against the federal government for which a quick remedies must be effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even more should be done, however, as this “contract”can, in many ways, be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from the state authorities and, hence, have no legitimate right to offer.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:5
    * Of course, returning the trust fund money including interest and damages to ratepayers and utilities companies quite obviously does not dispose of the hazardous waste. Waste disposal and public safety, though, remains a power of the state governments under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. The public safety and police power have long been held to be state law matters and most appropriately so.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:6
    * While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one’s waste, one must never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the Constitution nor forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful materials in the rangeland of Texas. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to impose one’s waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for the dumper is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor particularly pleasant for the dumpee.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 17:7
    * It should not be lost on those interested in this issue that the federal government actually encouraged development of this industry to a degree the market would have never “contemplated” by artificially and, again, illegitimately, imposing a federal cap on damages in liability suits. In order to fully weigh the benefits and costs of nuclear power, external costs must be internalized rather than ignored.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 28, 2000

!TITLE:
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1433]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today with H. Con. Res. 292 Congress bestows well-deserved congratulations upon the people of Taiwan for the successful conclusion of presidential elections on March 18, 2000, and for their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets. President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan should also be praised for his significant contributions to freedom in Taiwan.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:2
    * Unfortunately, because the bill pronounces the Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8) as the legal standard by which U.S. policy toward Taiwan is governed, I cannot support the measure. This Taiwan Relations Act, effectuated a United States policy which recognized an attack against Taiwan as inimical to an attack on the United States.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:3
    * Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:4
    * Sadly, the U.S. has in recent years played the role of world interventionist and global policeman. Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address: ‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.’ Instead, the U.S. government has become the government force that unconstitutionally subsidizes one country and then pledges taxpayer dollars and lives to fight on behalf of that subsidized country’ enemies. It’s the same sort of wisdom that would subsidize tobacco farmers and pay the health care costs of those who then choose to smoke.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:5
    * Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largesse of this Congress, China enjoys the flow of U.S. taxpayers cash into Beijing’s coffers. Yet, today we are asked to pledge support for Taiwan when we could best demonstrate support for Taiwan by terminating subsidies to that country’s enemies.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 18:6
    * Again, my congratulations to the Taiwanese on their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets and to President Lee Teng-hui for his contributions to that end.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 29, 2000

!TITLE:
TRIBUTE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E444]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 19:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the law enforcement officers of Hays County, Texas. April 8th is the date of the second annual Hays County Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (LEAD) sponsored by SAC-N-PAC Stores Inc. LEAD 2000 committees have been meeting since last October to make this year’s event even more successful than the last, which raised $7,500 for participating law enforcement departments.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 19:2
    * As Event Coordinator Cheryl Warren Norton said, ‘With the growing rate of violence, especially among our youth, it is our responsibility and the general public’s responsibility to assist our law enforcement officers in areas in which they are in need.’ The money raised through LEAD 2000 will go toward crime prevention programs aimed at fighting crime and violence on the 8local level. Local law enforcement is the backbone of public safety and protection across America, and I am proud to represent an area that recognizes its law enforcement personnel for the heroes that they are.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 19:3
    * Some of the LEAD 2000 exhibits are SWAT, Mounted Patrol, the Dive Team, and possibly a Black Hawk Helicopter or Star Flight. The event will be held at the Hays County Civic Center and begins at 10:00 a.m. with an award presentation of bicycles for youth calendar contest winners, followed by an auction and fish fry.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 19:4
    * Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting our officers in blue across the nation, and I commend the LEAD 2000 organization as a model for other communities. This is an excellent way to show sincere appreciation for those who put their lives on the line for the safety of our communities.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 29, 2000

!TITLE:
UNNECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND UNWISE MILITARY ADVENTURISM IN COLOMBIA


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1484]





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, the current budget this year authorizes an expenditure of $1.789 trillion. We would think that would be enough. The President has asked for an additional $4 billion. After the House leadership thought about this, they decided to give him $9 billion.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 20:2
Quite frankly, I think there is enough waste and fraud in the current budget that we could find the $4 billion if this expenditure were necessary. If we ever considered cutting back on some unconstitutional spending, we would have plenty of funds to take care of additional expenditures and have a lot left over.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 20:3
But we should be very cautious about what we are doing today by expanding our involvement in Colombia. We are now moving into Colombia and spending a lot of money and expanding our war in this area. We should not be spending our money on military adventurism. We should be taking this money and spending it to build up our military defenses. We should be using this money to pay our military personnel more money, give them better housing and better education and better medical care.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 20:4
What we are doing today, if we pass this bill, is we are going to move into an another area of the world where we have no constitutional interest.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 29, 2000

!TITLE:
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1507]





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have already appropriated $1.7 trillion for this year’s budget. We do not need to appropriate another $9 billion.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:2
It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake up and decide that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:3
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues, it is a serious problem. There are a lot of people suffering from drug usage in this country. But if something does not work, why are we so determined to pursue a process that does not work?



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:4
Quite frankly, I am not sure the real reason why we are in Colombia has anything to do with drugs. I do concede a lot of individuals will be voting for this bill because of the belief that it might help. But it will not help. So we should reconsider it and think about the real reasons why we might be there.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:5
I had an amendment that was not approved. But what I would have done, if I had had the chance, I would have taken all the money from the overseas spending, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and the funds now for this new adventure down in Colombia, and put it into building up our military defense. That is what we need. We need better salaries, better medical care, and we need better housing for our military personnel. But here we go spreading ourselves thinly again around the world by taking on a new adventure, which will surely lead to trouble and a lot of expense.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:6
Members have referenced the 65 helicopters that will be sent to Colombia. There is one, I guess, cynical hope about what might happen with our involvement in Colombia. Usually when we get involved its only going to be for a short period of time. We were going to go into Bosnia for 6 months. We have been there 5 years. We were going to go to Kosovo for a short period of time. It is open-ended. We are in East Timor for who knows how long. And we will soon be in Colombia.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:7
But there was one time where we backed away, we literally surrendered and ran with our tail between our legs because we went in with helicopters, and that had to do with Somalia. We sent our Blackhawk helicopters in there. We had two of them shot down in Mogadishu. We had two others that crash landed when they returned to the base. Within a couple weeks, we were out of there.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:8
We did not send our Blackhawk helicopters into Kosovo because they would be shot down. Lets face it, it is not a good weapon. It will only lead to further involvement.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:9
Who is going to fly the Blackhawk helicopters? Do my colleagues think the Colombians are going to fly them? You can bet our bottom dollar we are going to have American pilots down there very much involved in training and getting in much deeper than we ever should be.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:10
So I think that, unfortunately, this could end up in a real mess. Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there. This money can be better spent on national defense. We should be concerned about national security.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:11
When we get ourselves involved, whether it is the Persian Gulf or Bosnia or wherever, all we do is build up our enemies and expose ourselves more to terrorist attacks because we are not doing it in the name of security and resentment toward America builds.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:12
Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national defense.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:13
Even those who build helicopters are pretty blunt. One lobbyist said, ‘It is business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody. I am just trying to sell helicopters.’



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:14
What about the oil companies who support this war; which several oil companies do? Yes, they want investment security, so they want the military industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as well as the helicopter companies.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:15
But the American people, if they were asked, they would decline. A recent poll by Zogby showed that, essentially, 70 percent of the American people answered no to this particular question: ‘Should the U.S. help defend militarily such-and-such country even though it could cost American soldiers their lives?’ It varied depending on which country. But, basically, 65 to 75 percent of the American people said no. The American people want us to mind our own business and not be the policeman of the world.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:16
Can any Member come to this floor and absolutely assure us that we are not going to lose American lives in Colombia? We are certainly committing ourselves to huge numbers of dollars, dollars that we do not have, dollars that if we wanted to could come out of the current $1.7 trillion budget we already have.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:17
So I would suggest to my colleagues, let us reassess this. It is not really a war on drugs.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:18
The war on drugs, by trying to reduce interdiction does not work. It has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those who are anxious to drill for oil there and for the military industrial complex to sell weapons.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:19
It’s amazing to me to see an administration who strongly opposes law abiding American citizens from owning guns for self defense to be such a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 21:20
I ask for a ‘no’ vote.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul

!DATE:
30 March 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 5 printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:

SEC. . (a) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following amounts:

(1) “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE—Drug Enforcement Administration—Salaries and Expenses”, $293,048,000.

(2) “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY —OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense”, $185,800,000.

(3) “BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE —Funds Appropriated to the President —Department of State—Assistance for Plan Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics Activities”, $1,099,000,000.

(b) None of the funds made available in title I for “Military Construction, Defense- Wide” may be used for construction outside of the United States or any of its territories or possessions.

(c) None of the funds made available in title II may be used for operations in Kosovo or East Timor, other than the return of United States personnel and property to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 29, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) each will control 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that I am not dealing with a fly, a gnat, or a flea with my amendment. I would rather not categorize this as dealing with an elephant for obvious reasons.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:4
But I would like to say that my amendment deals with what I consider a monster, and that monster to me is careless foreign military interventionism in which we engage way too often and something we are getting ready to further engage ourselves now in Colombia.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:5
I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, “I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.” Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:6
Earlier on, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do we defer to them for policy and we extend ourselves throughout the world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens know.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:7
Last year, when we were dealing with Kosovo and our initial involvement in there, we had several votes on the floor dealing with the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:8
But, unfortunately, when it came time to deal with the funding, we were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in Kosovo as well as Bosnia, East Timor, and now with plans to go into South America, principally Colombia.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:9
My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home. Some people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, that we are deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite the opposite. think it would absolutely be helpful, because the morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower. The morale is low because they do not know what their real function is in areas where we’re involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as well as Peace Corps type operators.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:10
The morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops home. This is what this amendment deals with. And it strikes the funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:11
In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in selfdefense. At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:12
I cannot think of a worse situation where there is a four-way faction in Colombia for us to get further involved. Buying 63 helicopters is bound to cause trouble and some will be shot down thus requiring more involvement by American troops.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:13
It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:14
This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to decide whether or not they would like to vote clearly and say to the American people, “I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world.” This is what this amendment says. Quite frankly, the large majority of the American people are strongly supportive of this position.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:15
This is a clear amendment. This is not dealing with a gnat or a flea. This is dealing with a principle. Some say this amendment deals with a principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:16
That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words “foreign policy” do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:17
I would have preferred an amendment that would have struck some of these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds spent here at home. That amendment was not permissible under the rule.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:18
But this point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:19
I think this is a very important amendment, and I the American people support it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 22:20
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment

!DATE:
30 March 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington). The gentleman from Texas has 31/2 minutes remaining.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:3
I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender to the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:4
Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole. This is totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and go in to Colombia and protect oil interests. That is the real reason why we are down there.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:5
We say this is only replacement of money for Kosovo. Well, what makes us think if we put the money in and replace it the President will not do the same thing over again? Of course he will. The fact that we are not watching the purse strings tightly enough is the problem.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:6
The gentleman suggests that this would mean that there would be no more building and no support for our troops in Korea. My amendment only deals with the money in this supplemental. What about the current year’s budget? Those funds can still be spent. But it also suggests that we shall question how long are we going to be in Korea. It is time to start thinking about these matters. It is time to bring these troops home.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:7
If we want to spend the money, spend it here at home. Spend the money here. Build up our national defense. If we wish to continually expand our interventionism and aggravation overseas, then I guess we have to vote against this amendment and for the bill. But this is a policy statement. Should we continue current policy of forever spending money and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start thinking about what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers, what is good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:8
This is the furtherest stretch of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget, especially what we are going to do in Colombia, has anything to do with national security. What are we worried about? Are the Colombians going to attack us? This is not national security. This is special interest spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:9
We condemn all the welfare from the left, but we always have our own welfare on the right, and it is not for national defense. We should do less of this military adventurism overseas and put it into national defense, take better care of our troops, which would boost morale, and increase our ability to defend our country. But, instead, what do we do? We subsidize our enemies to the tune of many billions of dollars for a country like China at the same time, when they are aggravated and annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan and then promise to send American servicemen to stand in between the two of them.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:10
Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good for us. I am frightened to think that this will only change either when we are in such a mess, a lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke or both. But we should not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it comes from the constitution, certainly we should note the tradition of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 23:11
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Demanding Recorded Vote

!DATE:
30 March 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 3, 2000

!TITLE:
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1655]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 25:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan’s publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it’s proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan’s candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 25:2
    * I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 25:3
    * Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, 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.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 25:4
    * In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan’s advocacy for limited government, 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 Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan’s stated convictions.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 25:5
    * It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people’s money.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 5, 2000

!TITLE:
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1772]





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion has significantly contributed to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:2
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:3
Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:4
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:5
H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:6
Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:7
The abuse of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce laws clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer conforms to the constitutional dictates but, instead, is out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 3660 thus endorses the entire process which has so often been condemned by limited government advocates when used by the authoritarians as they constructed the welfare State.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 26:8
We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 6, 2000

!TITLE:
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H1917]

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:2
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:3
The text of the amendment is as follows:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:4
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:5
Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new section:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:6
SEC. 408. PROHIBITION ON USE OF AMOUNTS TO ACQUIRE CHURCH PROPERTY.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:7
Section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:8
‘(i) Prohibition on Use of Assistance to Acquire Church Property : Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no amount from a grant under section 106 may be used to carry out or assist any activity if such activity, or the project for which such activity is to be conducted, involves acquisition of real property owned by a church that is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(a)), unless the governing body of the church has previously consented to such acquisition.’.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:9
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 460, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:10
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ).



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:11
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:12
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:13
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick ) for cosponsoring this amendment. This amendment is simple and straightforward. The amendment merely states that it prohibits the use of funds for activities involving the acquisition of church property unless the consent of the governing body of the church is obtained. This means that community development block grant money cannot be used to invoke eminent domain and take a church away from the church owners or the occupants without their permission.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:14
It has been done in the past, and it is planned to be done in the future. I think this is a very important amendment to make sure that these funds are not used in this way. I think the point is that private property is very important, that owners do have rights; and quite frequently when this is invoked, it occurs in the poorer areas where there is less legal protection and legal help.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:15
I am very pleased to introduce this amendment. I am very pleased to have the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick ) as the cosponsor.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:16
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:17
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan, the coauthor.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I stand as a cosponsor of this amendment, and it is a good amendment. We have had several calls in our office today wondering what it is, and we took the opportunity to explain it to them.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:18
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach ), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio ), as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce ), the ranking member, for the fine work that they have done and the entire Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I was a former Member of that committee, and I know the hard work that they do.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:19
No church in America should be denied the opportunity to participate in a developing community. The amendment that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) and I are offering today is to say that no community development block grant funds can be used to take any church, unless that church is involved and does agree in that selection.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:20
With that, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) for bringing it to my attention. We have spoken to the minister and other people who are concerned about this issue. I would move, Mr. Chairman, that we adopt the amendment.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:21
Mr. PAUL. I appreciate the support of the gentlewoman.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:22
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:23
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:24
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) for bringing this amendment to the House floor to address an important concern. I want to also thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick ) as well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:25
I rise in support of the amendment and want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) for his hard work in getting this to the floor and for his numerous discussions with my staff and with myself to ensure that the various concerns that have been raised have been addressed. I want to thank the gentleman. I am in strong support of it and I urge passage.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:26
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio ) for the support.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:27
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:28
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:29
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just join in making it clear that we on the minority side have no objection to the ‘render unto Caesar’ amendment.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:30
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:31
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:32
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:33
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ).


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 27:34
The amendment was agreed to.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 6, 2000

!TITLE:
TRIBUTE TO BASTROP HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E513]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 28:1
    * Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Student Council Energy and Environment Committee of Bastrop High School in Bastrop, Texas. This dedicated group of students has been working diligently on projects to increase awareness about energy conservation and the environment.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 28:2
    * Some of their projects include trash pick-up, recycling, efficient driving and car maintenance training, and coordination of Earth Day festivities in Bastrop on the third weekend of April. They have also spread information by way of books, pamphlets and posters around their community. Not only has their work improved the safety and appearance of the campus and surrounding area, but it has also increased feelings of school unity and pride among the students.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 28:3
    * Their local focus is an example to all of us that local involvement is key to solving most problems faced by Americans today. I am proud to represent such a responsible and dedicated group of young people.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 28:4
    * Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting the Student Council of Bastrop High School. This is an excellent way to show sincere appreciation for those who take the time and energy to improve their communities for themselves and others.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 2, 2000

!TITLE:
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H2393]





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I asked for this Special Order this evening to talk about trade. We are going to be dealing with permanent normal trade relations with China here soon, and there is also a privileged resolution that will be brought to the floor that I have introduced, H.J.Res. 90. The discussion in the media and around the House floor has been rather clear about the permanent normal trade status, but there has not been a whole lot of talk yet about whether or not we should even really be in the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:2
I took this time mainly because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what free trade is. There are not a whole lot of people who get up and say I am opposed to free trade, and many of those who say they are for free trade quite frankly I think they have a distorted definition of what free trade really is.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:3
I would like to spend some time this evening talking a little bit about that, because as a strict constitutionalist and one who endorses laissez-faire capitalism, I do believe in free trade; and there are good reasons why countries should trade with each other.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:4
The first reason I would like to mention is a moral reason. There is a moral element involved in trade, because when governments come in and regulate how citizens spend their money, they are telling them what they can do or cannot do. In a free society, individuals who earn money should be allowed to spend the money the way they want. So if they find that they prefer to buy a car from Japan rather than Detroit, they basically have the moral right to spend their money as they see fit and those kinds of choices should not be made by government. So there is a definite moral argument for free trade.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:5
Patrick Henry many years ago touched on this when he said, ‘You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased nor how you are to become a great and powerful people but how your liberties may be secured, for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.’ We have not heard much talk of liberty with regards to trade, but we do hear a lot about enhancing one’s ability to make more money overseas with trading with other nations. But the argument, the moral argument, itself should be enough to convince one in a free society that we should never hamper or interfere with free trade.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:6
When the colonies did not thrive well prior to the Constitution, two of the main reasons why the Constitutional Convention was held was, one, there was no unified currency, that provided a great deal of difficulty in trading among the States, and also trade barriers are among the States.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:7
Even our Constitution was designed to make sure that there were not trade barriers, and this was what the interstate commerce clause was all about. Unfortunately though, in this century the interstate commerce clause has been taken and twisted around and is the excuse for regulating even trade within a State. Not only interstate trade, but even activities within a State has nothing to do with interstate trade. They use the interstate commerce clause as an excuse, which is a wild distortion of the original intent of the Constitution, but free trade among the States having a unified currency and breaking down the barriers certainly was a great benefit for the development and the industrialization of the United States.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:8
The second argument for free trade is an economic argument. There is a benefit to free trade. Free trade means that you will not have high tariffs and barriers so you cannot buy products and you cannot exert this freedom of choice by buying outside. If you have a restricted majority and you can evenly buy from within, it means you are protecting industries that may not be doing a very good job, and there is not enough competition.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:9
It is conceded that probably it was a blessing in disguise when the automobile companies in this country were having trouble in the 1970s, because the American consumer was not buying the automobiles, the better automobiles were coming in, and it should not have been a surprise to anybody that all of a sudden the American cars got to be much better automobiles and they were able to compete.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:10
There is a tremendous economic benefit to the competition by being able to buy overseas. The other economic argument is that in order to keep a product out, you put on a tariff, a protective tariff. A tariff is a tax. We should not confuse that, we should not think tariff is something softer than a tax in doing something good. A tariff is a tax on the consumer. So those American citizens who want to buy products at lower prices are forced to be taxed.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:11
If you have poor people in this country trying to make it on their own and they are not on welfare, but they can buy clothes or shoes or an automobile or anything from overseas, they are tremendously penalized by forcing them to pay higher prices by buying domestically.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:12
The competition is what really encourages producers to produce better products at lower costs and keep the prices down. If one believes in free trade, they do not enter into free trade for the benefit of somebody else. There is really no need for reciprocity. Free trade is beneficial because it is a moral right. Free trade is beneficial because there is an economic advantage to buying products at a certain price and the competition is beneficial.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:13
There really are no costs in the long run. Free trade does not require management. It is implied here on conversation on the House floor so often that free trade is equivalent to say we will turn over the management of trade to the World Trade Organization, which serves special interests. Well, that is not free trade; that is a misunderstanding of free trade.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:14
Free trade means you can buy and sell freely without interference. You do not need international management. Certainly, if we are not going to have our own government manage our own affairs, we do not want an international body to manage these international trades.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:15
Another thing that free trade does not imply is that this opens up the doors to subsidies. Free trade does not mean subsidies, but inevitably as soon as we start trading with somebody, we accept the notion of managed trade by the World Trade Organization, but immediately we start giving subsidies to our competitors.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:16
If our American companies and our American workers have to compete, the last thing they should ever be required to do is pay some of their tax money to the Government, to send subsidies to their competitors; and that is what is happening. They are forced to subsidize their competitors on foreign aid. They support their competitors overseas at the World Bank. They subsidize their competitors in the Export/Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:17
We literally encourage the exportation of jobs by providing overseas protection in insurance that cannot be bought in the private sector. Here a company in the United States goes overseas for cheap labor, and if, for political or economic reasons, they go bust, who bails them out. It is the American taxpayer, once again, the people who are struggling and have to compete with the free trade.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:18
It is so unfair to accept this notion that free trade is synonymous with permitting these subsidies overseas, and, essentially, that is what is happening all the time. Free trade should never mean that through the management of trade that it endorses the notion of retaliation and also to stop dumping.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:19
This whole idea that all of a sudden if somebody comes in with a product with a low price that you can immediately get it stopped and retaliate, and this is all done in the name of free trade, it could be something one endorses. They might argue that they endorse this type of managed trade and subsidized trade; but what is wrong, and I want to make this clear, what is wrong is to call it free trade, because that is not free trade.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:20
Most individuals that I know who promote free trade around Washington, D.C., do not really either understand what free trade is or they do not really endorse it. And they are very interested in the management aspect, because some of the larger companies have a much bigger clout with the World Trade Organization than would the small farmers, small rancher or small businessman because they do not have the same access to the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:21
For instance, there has been a big fight in the World Trade Organization with bananas. The Europeans are fighting with the Americans over exportation of bananas. Well, bananas are not grown in Europe and they are not grown in the United States, and yet that is one of the big issues of managed trade, for the benefit of some owners of corporations that are overseas that make big donations to our political parties. That is not coincidental.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:22
So powerful international financial individuals go to the World Trade Organization to try to get an edge on their competitor. If their competitor happens to be doing a better job and selling a little bit lower, then they come immediately to the World Trade Organization and say, Oh, you have to stop them. That is dumping. We certainly do not want to give the consumers the benefit of having a lower price.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:23
So this to me is important, that we try to be clear on how we define free trade, and we should not do this by accepting the idea that management of trade, as well as subsidizing trade and calling it free trade is just not right. Free trade is the ability of an individual or a corporation to buy goods and spend their money as they see fit, and this provides tremendous economic benefits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:24
The third benefit of free trade, which has been known for many, many centuries, has been the peace effect from trade. It is known that countries that trade with each other and depend on each other for certain products and where the trade has been free and open and communications are free and open and travel is free and open, they are very less likely to fight wars. I happen to personally think this is one of the greatest benefits of free trade, that it leads us to policies that direct us away from military confrontation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:25
Managed trade and subsidized trade do not qualify. I will mention just a little later why I think it does exactly the opposite.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:26
There is a little bit more to the trade issue than just the benefits of free trade, true free trade, and the disadvantages of managed trade, because we are dealing now when we have a vote on the normal trade status with China, as well as getting out of the World Trade Organization, we are dealing with the issue of sovereignty. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, section 8, gives the Congress the responsibility of dealing with international trade. It does not delegate it to the President, it does not delegate it to a judge, it does not delegate it to an international management organization like the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:27
International trade management is to be and trade law is to be dealt with by the U.S. Congress, and yet too often the Congress has been quite willing to renege on that responsibility through fast-track legislation and deliver this authority to our President, as well as delivering through agreements, laws being passed and treaties, delivering this authority to international bodies such as the UN-IMF-World Trade Organizations, where they make decisions that affect us and our national sovereignty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:28
The World Trade Organization has been in existence for 5 years. We voted to join the World Trade Organization in the fall of 1994 in the lame duck session after the Republicans took over the control of the House and Senate, but before the new Members were sworn in. So a lame duck session was brought up and they voted, and by majority vote we joined the World Trade Organization, which, under the Constitution, clearly to anybody who has studied the Constitution, is a treaty. So we have actually even invoked a treaty by majority vote.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:29
This is a serious blunder, in my estimation, the way we have dealt with this issue, and we have accepted the idea that we will remain a member based on this particular vote.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:30
Fortunately, in 1994 there was a provision put in the bill that said that any member could bring up a privileged resolution that gives us a chance at least to say is this a good idea to be in the World Trade Organization, or is it not? Now, my guess is that we do not have the majority of the U.S. Congress that thinks it is a bad idea. But I am wondering about the majority of the American people, and I am wondering about the number of groups now that are growing wary of the membership in the World Trade Organization, when you look at what happened in Seattle, as well as demonstrations here in D.C. So there is a growing number of people from various aspects of the political spectrum who are now saying, what does this membership mean to us? Is it good or is it bad? A lot of them are coming down on the side of saying it is bad.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:31
Now, it is also true that some who object to membership in the World Trade Organization happen to be conservative free enterprisers, and others who object are coming from the politics of the left. But there is agreement on both sides of this issue dealing with this aspect, and it has to do with the sovereignty issue.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:32
There may be some labor law and there may be some environmental law that I would object to, but I more strenuously object to the World Trade Organization dictating to us what our labor law ought to be and what our environmental law ought to be. I highly resent the notion that the World Trade Organization can dictate to us tax law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:33
We are currently under review and the World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States because we have given a tax break to our overseas company, and they have ruled against us and said that this tax break is a tax subsidy, language which annoys me to no end. They have given us until October 1 to get rid of that tax break for our corporations, so they are telling us, the U.S. Congress, what we have to do with tax law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:34
You say, oh, that cannot be. We do not have to do what they tell us. Well, technically we do not have to, but we will not be a very good member, and this is what we agreed to in the illegal agreement. Certainly it was not a legitimate treaty that we signed. But in this agreement we have come up and said that we would obey what the WTO says.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:35
Our agreement says very clearly that any ruling by the WTO, the Congress is obligated to change the law. This is the interpretation and this is what we signed. This is a serious challenge, and we should not accept so easily this idea that we will just go one step further.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:36
This has not just happened 5 years ago, there has been a gradual erosion of the concept of national sovereignty. It occurred certainly after World War II with the introduction of the United Nations, and now, under current conditions, we do not even ask the Congress to declare war, yet we still fight a lot of wars. We send troops all over the world and we are involved in combat all the time, and our presidents tell us they get the authority from a UN resolution. So we have gradually lost the concept of national sovereignty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:37
I want to use a quote from somebody that I consider rather typical of the establishment. We talk about the establishment, but nobody ever knows exactly who they are. But I will name this individual who I think is pretty typical of the establishment, and that is Walter Cronkite. He says, ‘We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice in an international government.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:38
‘But,’ he goes on to say, and this he makes very clear, and this is what we should be aware of, ‘the American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law, and I think that is going to come to other people as well.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:39
So it is not like it has been hidden, it is not like it is a secret. It is something that those who disagree with me about liberty and the Constitution, they believe in internationalism and the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, and they certainly have the right to that belief, but it contradicts everything America stands for and it contradicts our Constitution, so, therefore, we should not allow this to go unchallenged.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:40
Now, the whole idea that treaties could be passed and undermine the ability of our Congress to pass legislation or undermine our Constitution, this was thought about and talked about by the founders of this country. They were rather clear on the idea that a treaty, although the treaty can become the law of the land, a treaty could never be an acceptable law of the land if it amended or changed the Constitution. That would be ridiculous, and they made that very clear.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:41
It could have the effect of the law of the land, as long as it was a legitimate constitutional agreement that we entered into. But Thomas Jefferson said if the treaty power is unlimited, then we do not have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:42
So that is very important. We cannot just sit back and accept the idea that the World Trade Organization, we have entered into it, it was not a treaty, it was an agreement, but we have entered into it, and the agreement says we have to do what they tell us, even if it contradicts the whole notion that it is the Congress’ and people’s responsibility to pass their own laws with regard to the environment, with regard to labor and with regard to tax law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:43
So I think this is important material. I think this is an important subject, a lot more important than just the vote to trade with China. I think we should trade with China. I think we should trade with Cuba. I think we should trade with everybody possible, unless we are at war with them. I do not think we should have sanctions against Iran, Iraq or Libya, and it does not make much sense to me to be struggling and fighting and giving more foreign aid to a country like China, and at the same time we have sanctions on and refuse to trade and talk with Cuba. That does not make a whole lot of sense. Yet those who believe and promote trade with China are the ones who will be strongly objecting to trade with Cuba and these other countries. So I think a little bit more consistency on this might be better for all of us.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:44
Alexander Hamilton also talked about this. He said a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any expressed exception to the powers of the Constitution of the United States.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:45
So these were the founders talking about this, and yet we have drifted a long way. It does not happen overnight. It has been over a 50-year period. Five years ago we went one step further. First we accepted the idea that international finance would be regulated by the IMF. Then we accepted the idea that the World Bank, which was supposed to help the poor people of the world and redistribute wealth, they have redistributed a lot of wealth, but most of it ended up in the hands of wealthy individuals and wealthy politicians. But the poor people of the world never get helped by these programs. Now, 5 years ago we have accepted the notion that the World Trade Organization will bring about order in trade around the country.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 29:46
Well, since that time we have had a peso crisis in Mexico and we had a crisis with currencies in Southeast Asia. So I would say that the management of finances with the IMF as well as the World Trade Organization has been very unsuccessful, and even if one does not accept my constitutional argument that we should not be doing this, we should at least consider the fact that what we are doing is not very successful.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Adjournment

!DATE:
2 May 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 4, 2000

!TITLE:
Statement on the Death of John Cardinal O’Connor


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Speaker: I want to join my colleagues who spoke today about the death of Cardinal O’Connor. In the passing of this tremendous spiritual beacon, millions of American worshipers have lost a great shepherd of the faithful.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 31:2
Cardinal O’Connor was an unabashed champion for human life and human dignity. His presence will be missed. Throughout his illness he showed us how to face death with dignity as well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 31:3
John Cardinal O’Connor was a giant. He lived his life as a true pillar of faith. In a time when our nation and our world has witnessed a general move toward the devaluation of our common humanity, this man stood firm against the grain. There has never been a time when it has been as difficult as it is now for people to stand against the worst traits of modernity. Cardinal O’Connor’s example shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that humans can continue to stand firm for noble goals even in this most difficult of times.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 31:4
Having had the opportunity to correspond with him recently, I can attest that he remained a gentle and principled man until the very end of his earthly life. May God continue to bless the Cardinal and reveal Himself in all of His majesty to this great man in the place he has now been welcomed.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 4, 2000

!TITLE:
TEXAS HOME SCHOOL APPRECIATION WEEK


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E636]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as this is Texas Home School Appreciation week, I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute those Texas parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:2
    * Home schooling is becoming a popular option for parents across the country. In Texas alone, there are approximately seventy five thousand home schooling families educating an average of three children per household. Home schooling is producing some outstanding results. For example, according to a 1997 study the average home schooled student scores near the ninetieth percentile on standardized academic achievement tests in reading, mathematics, social studies, and science! Further proof of the success of home schooling is the fact that in recent years, self-identified home schoolers have scored well above the national average on both the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT). These high scores are achieved by home schooling children, regardless of race, income-level, or gender.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:3
    * Contrary to media-generated stereotypes portraying home schooled children as isolated from their peers, home schooled children participate in a wide variety of social, athletic, and extra-curricular activities. Home schooling parents have formed numerous organizations designed to provide their children ample opportunity to interact with other children. In fact, recent data indicates that almost 50% of home schooled children engage in extra-curricular activities such as group sports and music classes, while a third of home schooled children perform volunteer work in their communities.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:4
    * Mr. Speaker, to be a home schooling parent takes a unique dedication to family and education. In many cases, home school families must forgo the second income of one parent, as well as incurring the costs of paying for textbooks, computers, and other school supplies. Home schooling parents must pay these expenses while, like all American families, struggling to pay state, local, and federal taxes.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:5
    * In order to help home schoolers, and all parents, devote more of their resources to their children’s education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This bill provides all parents a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses. This bill would help home school parents to provide their children a first-class education in a loving home environment.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:6
    * The Family Education Freedom Act will also benefit those parents who choose to send their children to public or private schools. Parents who choose to send their children to private school may use their tax credit to help cover the cost of tuition. Parents who choose to send their children to public schools may use their tax credit to help finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities like music programs. Parents may also use the credit to pay for tutoring and other special services for their children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:7
    * Mr. Speaker, the best way to improve education is to return control over education resources to the people who best know their children’s unique needs: those children’s parents. Congress should empower all parents, whether they choose to home school or send their child to a public or private school, with the means to control their child’s education. That is why I believe the most important education bill introduced in this Congress is the Family Education Freedom Act.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 32:8
    * In conclusion, I wish to once again commend the accomplishments of those parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. I also urge my colleagues to help home schoolers, and all parents, ensure their children get a quality education by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 4, 2000

!TITLE:
IDEA FULL FUNDING ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E634]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 4055, which authorizes over $160 billion in new federal spending for programs imposed on local school districts by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While I share the goal of devoting more resources to educating children with learning disabilities, I believe that there is a better way to achieve this laudable goal than increasing spending on an unconstitutional, failed program that thrusts children, parents, and schools into an administrative quagmire. Under the system set up by IDEA, parents and schools often become advisories and important decisions regarding a child’s future are made via litigation. I have received compliments from a special education administrator in my district that unscrupulous trial lawyers are manipulating the IDEA process to line their pockets at the expenses of local school districts. Of course, every dollar a local school district has to spend on litigation is a dollar the district cannot spend educating children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:2
    * IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:3
    * On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in a mainstream classroom graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:4
    * Increasing IDEA spending also provides incentives to over-identify children as learning disabled, thus unfairly stigmatizing many children and, in a vicious cycle, leading to more demands for increased federal spending on IDEA. Instead of increasing spending on a federal program that may actually damage the children it claims to help, Congress should return control over education to those who best know the child’s needs: parents. In order to restore parental control to education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. My tax credit would be of greatest benefit to parents of children with learning disabilities because it would allow them to devote more of their resources to ensure their children get an education that meets the child’s unique needs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:5
    * In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ‘Cookie Cutter’ approach. Thus, the best means of helping disabled children is to empower their parents with the resources to make sure their children receive an education suited to their child’s special needs, instead of an education that scarifies that child’s best interest on the altar of the ‘Washington-knows-best’ ideology.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 33:6
    * I therefore urge my colleagues to join with me in helping parents of special needs children to provide their children with an education by repealing federal mandates that divert resources away from helping children and, instead, embrace my Family Education Freedom Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
SENSE OF THE HOUSE IN SUPPORT OF AMERICA’S TEACHERS

!DATE:
May 9, 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H2732]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 34:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution of the gentlewoman from Texas expressing Congress’ appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers. I would also like to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. The first piece of legislation, H.R. 1706, prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession. Language banning federal funds for national teacher testing and national teacher certification has been included in both the House and Senate versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 34:2
    * I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 937) which provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. The Teacher Tax Cut Act thus increases teachers’ salaries without raising federal expenditures. It lets America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 34:3
    * Mr. Speaker, these two bills send a strong signal to America’s teachers that we in Congress are determined to encourage good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession and that we want teachers to be treated as professionals, not as Education Department functionaries. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution recognizing the hard work of America’s teachers. I also urge they continue to stand up for those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children by cosponsoring my legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for national teacher testing and to give America’s teachers a $1,000 tax credit.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Ways and Means Committee:
!DATE:
May 11, 2000

!TITLE:
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number

Before the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:1
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on the important issue of the misuse of the Social Security number as a uniform standard identifier. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number has been transformed from an administrative device used to administer the Social Security program into a de facto national ID number. Today, most Americans cannot get a job, get married, open a bank account, or even get a fishing license without their Social Security number. Many hospitals require parents to obtain Social Security numbers for their newborns before the hospital will discharge the baby. Moreover, many jurisdictions will not issue a death certificate without obtaining the deceased’s Social Security number.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:2
    The Congress that created the Social Security system in no way intended to create a national identifier. In fact, Congress never directly authorized the creation of the Social Security number — they simply authorized the creation of an “appropriate record keeping and identification scheme.” The Social Security number was actually the creation of the Internal Revenue Service!
    The Social Security Number did not become a popular identifier until the 1960s. In response to concerns about the use of the Social Security number, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974, because “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.”



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:3
    The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:4
    Since the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier. For example, in 1996, Congress required employers to report the Social Security number of employees as part of the “new hires” database, while in 1998, 210 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Mr. Chairman, my legislation, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) forbids Federal or State governments from using the Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:5
    Since I introduced this legislation on the first day of the 106th Congress, my office has received countless calls, letter, faxes, and e-mails from Americans around the country who are tired of having to divulge their national ID number in order to get a job, open bank account, or go fishing. The strong public outrage over the federal banking regulators’ “know your customer” scheme, as well as the attempt to turn state drivers’ licenses into a national ID card, and the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposals all reveal the extent to which the American people oppose the “surveillance state.” These Americans believe that since Congress created this problem, Congress must fix it.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:6
    Certain well-meaning members of Congress are focusing on the use of the Social Security number by private businesses. However, this ignores the fact that the private sector was only following the lead of the federal government in using the Social Security number as an ID. In many cases, the use of the Social Security number by private business is directly mandated by the government, for example, banks use Social Security numbers as an identifier for their customers because the federal government required them to use the Social Security number for tax reporting purposes. Once the federal government stops using the Social Security number as an identifier, the majority of private businesses, whose livelihood depends on pleasing consumers, will respond to their customers demands and stop using the Social Security number and other standard identifiers



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:7
    I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:8
    Furthermore, as we have seen with the administration’s so-called “medical privacy protection” proposal, federal “privacy protection laws” can actually undermine privacy by granting certain state-favored interests access to one’s personal information.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:9
    Finally, I would remind my colleagues that no private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on as massive a scale as the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the case of the Medicare clerk who sold the names of Medicare patients to an HMO, to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties have occurred by government agents. Therefore Congress should focus on the threat to liberty caused by the federal government’s use of uniform identifiers.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 35:10
    In conclusion, I once again thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on the uses and abuses on the Social Security number. I hope that this hearing is the first step toward Congressional action designed to stop the use of the Social Security number as a national ID number.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 15, 2000

!TITLE:
Manipulating Interest Rates


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H3034]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:1
    * The national debt is rising at an annual rate of a $100 billion per year while the federal government obligation to future generations is rising even faster. Yet, little concern is shown in Congress as our budgets grow and new programs are added on to old. Ordinary political deception has been replaced with the dangerous notion of invincibleness as members claim credit for imaginary budgetary surpluses. The percent of our income that government now takes continues to rise, while personal liberty is steadily compromised with each new budget. But the political euphoria associated with the “New Era” economy will soon come to an end.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:2
    * Although many have done well during the last seven years of economic growth, many middle-income families have had to struggle just to keep up. For them, inflation is not dead and the easy fortunes made on Wall Street are as far removed as winning the lottery. When the economy enters into recession, this sense of frustration will spread.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:3
    * Business cycles are well understood. They are not a natural consequence of capitalism but instead result from central bank manipulation of credit. This is especially true when the monetary unit is undefinable as it is in a fiat monetary system, such as ours. Therefore, it is correct to place blame on the Federal Reserve for all depressions/recessions, inflation, and much of the unemployment since 1913. The next downturn, likewise, will be the fault of the Fed.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:4
    * It is true that the apparent prosperity and the boom part of the cycle are a result of the Federal Reserve credit creation, but the price that must always be paid and the unfairness of inflationism makes it a dangerous process.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:5
    * The silly notion that money can be created at will by a printing press or through computer entries is eagerly accepted by the majority as an easy road to riches, while ignoring any need for austerity, hard work, saving, and a truly free market economy. Those who actively endorse this system equate money creation with wealth creation and see it as a panacea for the inherent political difficulty in raising taxes or cutting spending.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:6
    * A central bank that has no restraints placed on it is always available to the politicians who spend endlessly for reelection purposes. When the private sector lacks its appetite to lend sufficiently to the government, the Federal Reserve is always available to buy treasury debt with credit created out of thin air. At the slightest hint that interest rates are higher than the Fed wants, its purchase of debt keeps interest rates in check; that is, they are kept lower than the market rate. Setting interest rates is an enormous undertaking. It’s price fixing and totally foreign to the principles of free market competition.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:7
    * Since this process is economically stimulating, the politicians, the recipients of government largess, the bankers, and almost everyone enjoys the benefits of what seems to be a gift without cost.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:8
    * But that’s a fallacy. There is always a cost. Artificially low interest rates prompt lower savings, over-capacity expansion, mal-investment, excessive borrowing, speculation, and price increases in various segments of the economy. And since money creation is not wealth creation, it inevitably leads to a lower value for the currency. The inflation always comes to an end with various victims, many of whom never enjoyed the benefits of the credit creation and deficit spending.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:9
    * This silly notion of money and credit gives rise to the conventional wisdom that once the economy gets really rolling, it’s time for the Fed to stop economic growth. The false supposition is that economic growth causes higher prices and higher labor costs, and these evils must be prevented by tightening credit and raising interest rates. But these are only the consequences of the previous monetary expansion and blaming rising prices or higher labor costs is done only to distract from the real culprit-monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:10
    * In a free market, economic growth would never be considered a negative and purposely discouraged. It is strange that so many established economists and politicians accept the notion of dampening economic growth for this purpose. Economic growth with sound money always lowers prices-it never raises them. Deliberately increasing rates actually increase the cost of all borrowing, and yet it’s claimed that this is necessary to stop rising costs. Obviously, there’s not much to the soundness of central economic planning through monetary policy of this sort.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:11
    * There are some who see this fallacy and object to deliberately slowing the economy but instead clamor for even more monetary growth to keep interest rates low and the economy booming. But this is just as silly because that leads to even more debasement of the currency, rising prices, and instead of lowering interest rates will in time, due to inflationary expectation, actually raise rates.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 36:12
    * Fine-tuning the economy, through monetary manipulation is a dangerous game to play. We are now completing nearly a decade of rapid monetary growth and evidence is now appearing indicating that we will soon start to pay for our profligate ways. The financial bubble that the Fed manufactured over the past decade or two will burst and the illusion of our great wealth will end. In time, also the illusion of “surpluses for as far as the eye can see” will end. Then the Congress will be forced to take much more seriously the budgetary problems that it pretends do not exist.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 16, 2000

!TITLE:
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H3150]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:1
    * Fiat money, that is, money created out of thin air, causes numerous problems, internationally as well as domestic. It causes domestic price inflation, economic downturns, unemployment, excessive debt, (corporate, personal and government) mal-investment, and over capacity — all very serious and poorly understood by our officials. But fluctuating values of various paper currencies cause all kinds of disruptions in international trade and finance as well.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:2
    * Trade surpluses and deficits when sound money conditions exist are of little concern since they prompt changes in policy or price adjustments in a natural or smooth manner. When currencies are non-convertible into something of real value, they can be arbitrarily increased at will, trade deficits and especially current account deficits are of much greater significance.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:3
    * When trade imbalances are not corrected, sudden devaluations, higher interest rates, and domestic inflation are forced on the country that has most abused its monetary power. This was seen in 1997 in the Asian crisis, and precarious economic conditions continue in that region.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:4
    * Japan has yet to recover from its monetary inflation of the 70s and 80s and has now suffered with a lethargic economy for over a decade. Even after this length of time there is no serious thought for currency reform in Japan or any other Asian nation.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:5
    * Although international trade imbalances are a predictable result of fiat money, the duration and intensity of the cycles associated with it are not. A reserve currency, such as is the dollar, is treated by the market quite differently than another fiat currency.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:6
    * The issuer of a reserve currency-in the case the United States-has greater latitude for inflating and can tolerate a current account deficit for much longer periods of time than other countries not enjoying the same benefit. But economic law, although at times it may seem lax, is ruthless in always demanding that economic imbalances arising from abuse of economic principles be rectified. In spite of the benefits that reserve currency countries enjoy, financial bubbles still occur and their prolongation, for whatever reason, only means the inevitable adjustment, when it comes, is more harsh.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:7
    * Our current state of imbalance includes a huge US/foreign debt of $1.5 trillion, a record 20% of GDP and is a consequence of our continuously running a huge monthly current account deficit that shows no signs of soon abating. We are now the world’s greatest debtor. The consequence of this deficit cannot be avoided. Our current account deficit has continued longer than many would have expected. But not knowing how long and to what extent deficits can go is not unusual. The precise event that starts the reversal in the trade balance is also unpredictable. The reversal itself is not.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:8
    * Japan’s lethargy, the Asian crisis, the Mexican financial crisis, Europe’s weakness, the uncertainty surrounding the EURO, the demise of the Soviet system, and the ineptness of the Russian bailout, all contributed to the continued strength in the dollar and prolongation of our current account deficit. This current account deficit, which prompts foreigners to loan back dollars to us and to invest in our stock and bond markets, has contributed significantly to the financial bubble. The perception that the United States is the economic and military powerhouse of the world, helps perpetuate an illusion that the dollar is invincible and has encouraged our inflationary policies.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:9
    * By inflating our currency, we can then spend our dollars overseas getting products at good prices which on the short run raises our standard of living - but, on borrowed money. All currency account deficits must be financed by borrowing from abroad.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:10
    * It all ends when the world wakes up and realizes it has been had by the US printing press. No country can expect to inflate its currency at will forever.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:11
    * Since cartels never work, OPEC does not deserve credit for getting oil prices above $30 per barrel. Demand for equivalent purchasing power for the sale of oil, can. Recent commodity and wage price increases signal accelerating price inflation is at hand. We are witnessing the early stages in a sea change regarding the dollar, inflation, the stock market as well as commodity prices.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:12
    * The nervousness in the stock and bond markets, and especially in the NASDAQ, indicates that the Congress may soon be facing an entirely different set of financial numbers regarding spending, revenues, interest costs on our national debt and the value of the US dollar. Price inflation of the conventional type will surely return, even if the economy slows.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 37:13
    * Fiscal policy, and current monetary policy will not solve the crisis we will soon face. Only sound money, money that cannot be created out of thin air, can solve the many problems appearing on the horizon. The sooner we pay attention to monetary policy as the source of our international financial problems, the sooner we will come up with a sound solution.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Government Reform and Oversight Committee:
!DATE:
May 18, 2000

!TITLE:
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:1
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on my legislation, HR 220, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I greatly appreciate your commitment to the issue of personal privacy. Protecting privacy is of increasing importance to the American people. Since I have introduced this bill, my office has received countless calls of support from Americans all across the country who are opposed to the use of uniform identifiers. I have also worked with a bipartisan coalition of members on various efforts to protect Americans from the surveillance state, such as the banking regulators’ “know your customer” scheme, and the attempt by the Post Office to violate the privacy of all Americans who use Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs).



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:2
    The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act represents a comprehensive attempt to protect the privacy of individual citizens from government surveillance via the use of standard identifiers. Among the provisions of the legislation is one repealing those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers’ licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. As I am sure my colleagues know, the language authorizing a national ID card was repealed in last year’s Transportation Appropriations bill and language prohibiting the expenditure of funds to develop a personal medical identifier has been included in the past two Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills. These victories where made possible by the thousands of Americans who let their elected representatives know that they were opposed to federally-mandated identifiers.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:3
    Perhaps the most significant portion of HR 220 prohibits the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is already a national identification number. Today, in the majority of states, no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers’ license, receive a birth certificate for one’s child without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:4
    As a test of citizen resistance, the Census bureau asked 21,000 households to report their Social Security number on their census form. One of the reasons the Census bureau is interested in the Social Security number is as a key to unlock information held by other government agencies.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:5
    Since the creation of the Social Security number in 1935, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs. Many of these uses, such as the requirement that employers report the Social Security number of new employees to the “new hires data base,” have been enacted in the past few years.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:6
    Such Congressional actions do not reflect the intent of the Congress that created the Social Security system as that Congress in no way intended to create a national identifier. In fact, Congress never directly authorized the creation of the Social Security number — they simply authorized the creation of an “appropriate record keeping and identification scheme.” The Social Security number was actually the creation of the Internal Revenue Service!



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:7
    The Social Security number did not become a popular identifier until the 1960s. In response to concerns about the use of the Social Security number, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974, because, as stated within the act itself, “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.”



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:8
    The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification. When one considers the trend toward the use of the Social Security number as an identifier, the need for HR 220 becomes clear.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:9
    The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to “investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate” American citizens. Mr. Chairman, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will ensure that American liberty is protected from the “surveillance state.” Allowing the federal government to use standard identifiers to oversee private transactions present tremendous potential for abuse of civil liberties by unscrupulous government officials.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:10
    I am sure I need not remind the members of this Committee of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies. Imagine the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ “uniform identifier” into a database.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:11
    This history of abuse of personal information by government officials demonstrates that the only effective means of guaranteeing American’s privacy is to limit the ability of the government to collect and store information regarding a citizen’s personal matters. The only way to prevent the government from knowing this information is preventing them from using standard identifiers.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:12
    In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:13
    Certain members of Congress are focusing on the use of the Social Security number and other identifiers by private businesses. However, this ignores the fact that the private sector was only following the lead of the federal government in using the Social Security number as an ID. In many cases, the use of the Social Security number by private business is directly mandated by the government, for example, banks use Social Security numbers as an identifier for their customers because the federal government required them to use the Social Security number for tax reporting purposes. Once the federal government stops using the Social Security number as an identifier, the majority of private businesses, whose livelihood depends on pleasing consumers, will respond to their customers demands and stop using the Social Security number and other standard identifiers in dealing with them.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:14
    I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:15
    Furthermore, as we have seen with the administration’s so-called “medical privacy protection” proposal, federal “privacy protection laws” can actually undermine privacy by granting certain state-favored interests access to one’s personal information.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:16
    Some may claim that the federal government needs expanded surveillance powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s tenth amendment.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:17
    Others may claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. However, in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:18
    The main reason Congress should take action to stop the use of standard identifiers is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”



    !CITE:
    2000 Ron Paul 38:19
    I once again extend my sincere appreciation to Chairman Horn and the other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and express my hope that this hearing begins the process of protecting the rights of all citizens to conduct their lives free from government intrusion.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 23, 2000

!TITLE:
INTERNATIONAL TRADE


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H3530]




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this week there will be a lot of talk on the House floor about international trade. One side will talk about pseudo free trade, the other about fair trade. Unfortunately, true free trade will not be discussed.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:2
Both sides generally agree to subsidies and international management of trade. The pseudo free trader will not challenge the WTO’s authority to force us to change our tax, labor, and environmental laws to conform to WTO rules, nor will they object to the WTO authorizing economic sanctions on us if we are slow in following WTO’s directives.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:3
What is permitted is a low-level continuous trade war, not free trade. The current debate over Chinese trade status totally ignores a much bigger trade problem the world faces, an ocean of fluctuating fiat currencies.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:4
For the past decade, with sharp adjustments in currency values such as occurred during the Asian financial crisis, the dollar and the U.S. consumers benefitted. But these benefits will prove short-lived, since the unprecedented prosperity and consumption has been achieved with money that we borrow from abroad.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:5
Our trade imbalances and our skyrocketing current account deficit once again hit a new record in March. Our distinction as the world’s greatest debtor remains unchallenged. But that will all end when foreign holders of dollars become disenchanted with financing our grand prosperity at their expense. One day, foreign holders of our dollars will realize that our chief export has been our inflation.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:6
The Federal Reserve believes that prosperity causes high prices and rising wages, thus causing it to declare war on a symptom of its own inflationary policy, deliberately forcing an economic slowdown, a sad and silly policy, indeed. The Fed also hopes that higher interest rates will curtail the burgeoning trade deficit and prevent the serious currency crisis that usually results from currency-induced trade imbalances. And of course, the Fed hopes to do all this without a recession or depression.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:7
That is a dream. Not only is the dollar due for a downturn, the Chinese currency is, as well. When these adjustments occur and recession sets in, with rising prices in consumer and producer goods, there will be those who will argue that it happened because of, or the lack thereof, of low tariffs and free trade with China.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 39:8
But instead, I suggest we look more carefully for the cause of the coming currency crisis. We should study the nature of all the world currencies and the mischief that fiat money causes, and resist the temptation to rely on the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, pseudo free trade, to solve the problems that only serious currency reform can address.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Permanent Normal Trade Relations

!DATE:
May 24, 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H3720]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:1
    * Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the legislation which would have implemented ‘permanent normal trade relations’ with the People’s Republic of China was three pages in length. Today, it is 66 pages in length. Close examination of this bill ‘gone bad’ is demonstrative of how this Congress misdefines ‘free trade’ and how, like most everything else is in Washington, this ‘free trade’ bill is a misnomer of significant proportions.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:2
    * For the past several years I have favored normal trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, I believe it is useful to begin with some detail as to what ‘normal trade relations’ status is and what it is not. Previous ‘normal trade relations’ votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods will be no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar products — period. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars sent to China. It did not signify more international family planning dollars sent overseas. NTR status does not mean automatic access to the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any member of other ‘foreign aid’ vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries. Rather, NTR status was the lowering of a United States citizen’s taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered into by citizens who happen to reside in different countries.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:3
    * Of course, many of the critics of NTR status for China do not address the free trade and the necessarily negative economic consequences of their position. No one should question that individual rights are vital to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of ‘protecting’ the human rights of citizens of other countries would be internally inconsistent. Trade barriers when lowered, after all, benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available. Those individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are not threatened by lowering barriers for those who do. Oftentimes, these critics focus instead on human rights deprivation by government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to ‘reform’ these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to Father Robert Sirco, a Paulist priest who discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change in China.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:4
    * But all of this said, this new 66 page ‘free trade’ bill is not about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ‘managed trade’ rather than that of free trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ‘[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:5
    * In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of ‘free trade’ fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the merchantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign. This new PNTR bill, rather than lowering government imposed barriers to trade, has become a legislative vehicle under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:6
    * No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don’t be fooled into thinking this bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free Asia.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 40:7
    * Mr. Speaker, I say no to this taxpayer-financed fanfare of ‘free trade’ which fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange and urge by colleagues to do the same.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 13, 2000

!TITLE:
Medical Privacy Amendment


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:2
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Paul:


At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:


Sec. XX. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(b)).


The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:4
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the funds in this appropriation can be used for implementing a uniform medical identifier. It is a privacy amendment. It was in the bill in 1998 and 1999. I think it would be a good idea to have it in this year’s bill.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:5
This comes from authority granted in the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 and it was designed to establish a medical data bank. But because many, on both sides of the aisle, have objected to this invasion of privacy to set up a medical data bank, there has been some resistance to this. Although the removal of the authority would be the proper way to solve this problem once and for all, I think that it would be very appropriate to continue the policy of not permitting any Federal funding to be spent on developing this universal medical identifier, which by all indications would be our Social Security numbers.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:6
Many people object to this invasion of privacy. They do not place full trust in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Government to protect our privacy. Many say that this would not be an invasion of privacy and there would be some strict rules and regulations about how this medical information would be used, but that is not enough reassurance.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:7
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues that this form of invasion of our medical privacy will not serve us well in medical care. What it leads to is incomplete and inaccurate medical records, because it becomes known to the patient as well as the physician that once this information is accumulated that it might get in the hands of the politicians and used for reasons other than for medical care, I think, it could damage medical care endangered from having a medical data bank set up.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:8
The American people have spoken out strongly in recent years about their invasion of privacy. There was a proposal to implement a know-your-customer bank regulations. These were soundly rejected by the people, and I think that this same sentiment applies to the medical data bank. Also, efforts to establish a national identification card for the American people has not met with a great deal of acceptance with the American people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:9
So my effort here in limiting this development of a universal medical identifier is to keep the Federal Government out of this business. It is too easy for abuse of this type of information to occur. We have heard that the various administrations over the years have abused records kept in the IRS as well as the FBI. This would just be another source of information that individuals could use in a negative fashion.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:10
I believe it is a fallacy for those who promote the setting up of a universal medical identifier and a universal medical data bank that it is an effort to simplify the process, to streamline the system, to make government more efficient, to facilitate medical research. It has also been said this could be used in law enforcement. But just think about this. If these records can be turned over without the approval of the patient to law enforcement, it really, quite clearly, is a violation of the fifth amendment of self-incrimination. So this idea that this medical bank might be beneficial for law enforcement is rather scary and something that we should prevent.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 41:11
Already, under authority that was given to Health and Human Services, they have started to draw up regulations which regulate privacy matters, not so much the medical data bank but in other areas. The other thing that concerns me a great deal is these medical regulations that have been proposed not only deal with the privacy of somebody that may be receiving medical care from Medicare but also in the private sector.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yield

!DATE:
13 June 2009


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 14, 2000

!TITLE:
TRIBUTE TO THE ROUND TOP, TEXAS, INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: E1003]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 43:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the citizens of Round Top, Texas. The bark of the old cannon on the town square in Round Top, Texas, on July 4, 2000, will announce the city’s famous Independence Day Parade. Each year, the small town of Round Top, deep in the heart of Fayette County in Texas’ Congressional District 14, swells to accommodate a crowd of 8,000 Fourth of July visitors that come to celebrate our nation’s freedom.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 43:2
    * In 1851, on the occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of United States, Round Top celebrated its first Fourth of July. The celebration of this most important date in United States history continues to be the longest held observance of Independence Day west of the Mississippi.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 43:3
    * According to historical accounts, early stagecoach lines operating along the Old Bahia Road between Houston and Austin traveled near the center of today’s town. When the drivers crossed Rocky Creek along the route and spotted the octagonal-shaped roof of the stage stand, they called out ‘Round Top!’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 43:4
    * Things are slow to change in Round Top. Its citizens appreciate their traditions and have adopted ordinances that are designed to project, enrich and promote the old historic landmarks for the enjoyment and edification of future generations.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 43:5
    * On the occasion of over 150 years of celebrations, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of Round Top, Texas, who, on Independence Day, proudly proclaim, ‘God Bless America!’







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization

!DATE:
June 19, 2000

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: H4657]




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a bill that is coming to the floor either tomorrow or the next day. It is H.J. Res. 90. This resolution, if it were to pass, would get us out of the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:2
There are many of us here in the House and many Americans who believe very sincerely that it is not in our best interests to belong to the World Trade Organization, who believe very sincerely that international managed trade, as carried on through the World Trade Organization, does not conform with our Constitution and does not serve our interests.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:3
It said by those who disagree with this so often in the media that those of us who disagree with the World Trade Organization that we are paranoid, we worry too much, and that there is no loss of sovereignty in this procedure. But quite frankly, there is strong evidence to present to show that not only do we lose sovereignty as we deliver this power to the World Trade Organization, that it indeed is not a legal agreement. It does not conform with our Constitution; and, therefore, we as Members of Congress should exert this privilege that we have every 5 years to think about the World Trade Organization, whether it is in our best interests and whether it is technically a good agreement.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:4
The World Trade Organization came into existence, and we joined it, in a lame duck session in 1994. It was hurried up in 1994 because of the concern that the new Members of Congress, who would have much more reflected the sentiments of the people, would oppose our membership in the WTO. So it went through in 1994; but in that bill, there was an agreement that a privileged resolution could come up to offer us this opportunity.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:5
Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the importance of whether or not this actually attacks our sovereignty. The CRS has done a study on the WTO, and they make a statement in this regard. This comes from a report from the Congressional Research Service on 8-25-99. It is very explicit. It says, as a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. That is about as clear as one can get.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:6
Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:7
Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:8
So I think that the American people deserve a little bit more than this.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:9
The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 44:10
Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this either tomorrow or the next day. We will make a decision, and it is not up to the World Trade Organization to decide what labor laws we have or what kind of environmental laws we have, or what tax laws.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 21, 2000

!TITLE:
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
H.J. Res. 90




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very successful. That is not what we are talking about here today.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:3
We are talking about a very complex treaty, an illegal treaty, an unconstitutional treaty. This is the size of the treaty. This is the size of the agreement. This has nothing to do with trying to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact, when this was passed in 1994, the thought was and the statement was made on the House floor that it would lower taxes; and that I would support.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:4
The truth is, there was an offset for every tax that was lower. Even with NAFTA, one gentleman told me that he immediately benefitted from NAFTA, because the tariff barriers went down. But do you know what happened, there was a reclassification of his product, and his tax went back on because he was a little guy, but the big guys got the benefits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:5
So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:6
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:7
This is the size of the agreement that we signed and voted on in 1994. Now, if that is not an entangling alliance, I do not know what could be. It is virtually impossible to go through this and understand exactly what we have agreed to. But this is it, and this is what we are voting on today. If my colleagues vote against the resolution, they are rubber stamping this. That is what they are doing.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:8
Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:9
The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:10
It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:11
It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:12
Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:13
This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:14
The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. ‘Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:15
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:16
Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:17
Let me say that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:18
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.’ But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:19
Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of ‘fair trade administered by the WTO’. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:20
‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.’ Thomas Jefferson.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:21
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:22
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote ‘yes’ on this resolution, vote ‘present.’ Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO--that’s it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:23
We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:24
Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:25
But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:26
Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:27
Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 45:28
This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 310
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic ; Independents underlined )
       H J RES 90     YEA-AND-NAY     21-JUN-2000   9:44 PM
       QUESTION:  On Passage
       BILL TITLE:  Withdrawing the Approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization


	YEAS 	NAYS 	PRES 	NV
REPUBLICAN 	33 	182 	  	6
DEMOCRATIC 	21 	181 	3 	6
INDEPENDENT 	2 	  	  	 
TOTALS 	56 	363 	3 	12


— YEAS    56 — Abercrombie 	Hall (TX) 	Peterson (MN)
Aderholt 	Hilleary 	Pombo
Baldwin 	Hostettler 	Rohrabacher
Barr 	Hunter 	Sanders
Bartlett 	Istook 	Scarborough
Bilirakis 	Jackson (IL) 	Schaffer
Bonior 	Jones (NC) 	Sensenbrenner
Brown (OH) 	Kaptur 	Smith (NJ)
Burton 	Kennedy 	Strickland
Chenoweth-Hage 	Kucinich 	Stupak
Coburn 	Lipinski 	Tancredo
Deal 	McKinney 	Taylor (MS)
DeFazio 	Metcalf 	Taylor (NC)
Doolittle 	Mink 	Traficant
Duncan 	Ney 	Wamp
Everett 	Norwood 	Waters
Gibbons 	Oberstar 	Weldon (FL)
Goode 	Obey 	Young (AK)
Goodling 	Paul 	

— NAYS    363 — Ackerman 	Gilchrest 	Northup
Allen 	Gillmor 	Nussle
Andrews 	Gilman 	Olver
Archer 	Gonzalez 	Ortiz
Armey 	Goodlatte 	Ose
Baca 	Gordon 	Owens
Bachus 	Goss 	Oxley
Baird 	Graham 	Packard
Baker 	Granger 	Pallone
Baldacci 	Green (TX) 	Pascrell
Ballenger 	Green (WI) 	Pastor
Barcia 	Greenwood 	Payne
Barrett (NE) 	Gutierrez 	Pease
Barrett (WI) 	Gutknecht 	Pelosi
Barton 	Hall (OH) 	Peterson (PA)
Bass 	Hansen 	Petri
Bateman 	Hastings (FL) 	Phelps
Becerra 	Hastings (WA) 	Pickering
Bentsen 	Hayes 	Pickett
Bereuter 	Hayworth 	Pitts
Berkley 	Hefley 	Pomeroy
Berman 	Herger 	Porter
Berry 	Hill (IN) 	Portman
Biggert 	Hill (MT) 	Price (NC)
Bilbray 	Hilliard 	Pryce (OH)
Bishop 	Hinojosa 	Quinn
Blagojevich 	Hobson 	Radanovich
Bliley 	Hoeffel 	Rahall
Blumenauer 	Hoekstra 	Ramstad
Blunt 	Holden 	Regula
Boehlert 	Holt 	Reyes
Boehner 	Hooley 	Reynolds
Bonilla 	Horn 	Riley
Bono 	Houghton 	Rodriguez
Borski 	Hoyer 	Roemer
Boswell 	Hulshof 	Rogan
Boucher 	Hutchinson 	Rogers
Boyd 	Hyde 	Ros-Lehtinen
Brady (PA) 	Inslee 	Rothman
Brady (TX) 	Isakson 	Roukema
Brown (FL) 	Jackson-Lee (TX) 	Royce
Bryant 	Jenkins 	Rush
Burr 	John 	Ryan (WI)
Buyer 	Johnson (CT) 	Ryun (KS)
Callahan 	Johnson, E. B. 	Sabo
Calvert 	Johnson, Sam 	Salmon
Camp 	Jones (OH) 	Sanchez
Canady 	Kanjorski 	Sandlin
Cannon 	Kasich 	Sanford
Capps 	Kelly 	Sawyer
Capuano 	Kildee 	Saxton
Cardin 	Kilpatrick 	Schakowsky
Castle 	Kind (WI) 	Scott
Chabot 	King (NY) 	Sessions
Chambliss 	Kingston 	Shadegg
Clay 	Kleczka 	Shaw
Clayton 	Klink 	Shays
Clement 	Knollenberg 	Sherman
Clyburn 	Kolbe 	Sherwood
Coble 	LaFalce 	Shimkus
Collins 	LaHood 	Shows
Combest 	Lampson 	Simpson
Condit 	Lantos 	Sisisky
Conyers 	Largent 	Skeen
Cooksey 	Larson 	Skelton
Costello 	Latham 	Slaughter
Cox 	LaTourette 	Smith (MI)
Coyne 	Lazio 	Smith (TX)
Cramer 	Leach 	Smith (WA)
Crane 	Lee 	Snyder
Crowley 	Levin 	Souder
Cubin 	Lewis (CA) 	Spence
Cummings 	Lewis (GA) 	Spratt
Cunningham 	Lewis (KY) 	Stabenow
Danner 	Linder 	Stark
Davis (FL) 	LoBiondo 	Stearns
Davis (IL) 	Lofgren 	Stenholm
Davis (VA) 	Lowey 	Stump
DeGette 	Lucas (KY) 	Sununu
Delahunt 	Lucas (OK) 	Sweeney
DeLauro 	Luther 	Talent
DeMint 	Maloney (CT) 	Tanner
Deutsch 	Maloney (NY) 	Tauscher
Diaz-Balart 	Manzullo 	Tauzin
Dickey 	Markey 	Terry
Dicks 	Martinez 	Thomas
Dingell 	Mascara 	Thompson (CA)
Dixon 	Matsui 	Thompson (MS)
Doggett 	McCarthy (MO) 	Thornberry
Dooley 	McCarthy (NY) 	Thune
Doyle 	McCollum 	Thurman
Dreier 	McCrery 	Tiahrt
Dunn 	McDermott 	Tierney
Edwards 	McGovern 	Toomey
Ehlers 	McHugh 	Towns
Ehrlich 	McInnis 	Turner
Emerson 	McIntyre 	Udall (CO)
Engel 	McKeon 	Udall (NM)
English 	McNulty 	Upton
Eshoo 	Meehan 	Velazquez
Etheridge 	Meek (FL) 	Visclosky
Evans 	Meeks (NY) 	Vitter
Ewing 	Menendez 	Walden
Farr 	Mica 	Walsh
Fattah 	Millender-McDonald 	Watkins
Filner 	Miller (FL) 	Watt (NC)
Fletcher 	Miller, Gary 	Watts (OK)
Foley 	Miller, George 	Waxman
Forbes 	Minge 	Weiner
Ford 	Moakley 	Weldon (PA)
Fossella 	Mollohan 	Weller
Fowler 	Moore 	Wexler
Frank (MA) 	Moran (KS) 	Weygand
Franks (NJ) 	Moran (VA) 	Whitfield
Frelinghuysen 	Morella 	Wicker
Frost 	Murtha 	Wilson
Gallegly 	Myrick 	Wise
Ganske 	Nadler 	Wolf
Gejdenson 	Napolitano 	Woolsey
Gekas 	Neal 	Wu
Gephardt 	Nethercutt 	Young (FL)






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:3
This is the size of the agreement that we signed and voted on in 1994. Now, if that is not an entangling alliance, I do not know what could be. It is virtually impossible to go through this and understand exactly what we have agreed to. But this is it, and this is what we are voting on today. If my colleagues vote against the resolution, they are rubber stamping this. That is what they are doing.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:4
Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:5
The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:6
It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:7
It is the same sort of thing. It is incrementalism. People say we can always oppose it. That is sort of like saying in 1913, The income tax is not all that bad; it is only 1 percent placed on the rich. We don’t have to worry about it. But before we know it, it is out of control. There is incrementalism here to be concerned about.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:8
To the issue of whether or not we are obligated to follow the WTO rules, Congressional Research Service on August 25, 1999, did a study on the WTO. Their interpretation is this:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:9
“As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:10
That is why we will be very soon changing our tax laws to go along with what the WTO tells us to do. In an article recently written by D. Augustino, he says:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:11
“On June 5, WTO Director General Michael Moore emphasized the obedience to WTO rulings as not optional. Quote, the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and if necessary the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 46:13
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GILLMOR). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 25 minutes remaining.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 47:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 47:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho, (Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 48:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. STUPAK).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 49:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas. This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 49:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. METCALF).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 50:2
The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. “Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 50:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 51:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 51:3
Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 51:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yielding

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD).

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 53:2
Let me say to the gentleman that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 53:3
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 53:4
Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of “fair trade administered by the WTO”. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 53:5
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Reserving Time

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:2
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.” Thomas Jefferson.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:3
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:4
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote “yes” on this resolution, vote “present.” Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO—that’s it.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:5
We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:6
Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:7
But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:8
Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:9
Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 55:10
This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
World Trade Organization

!DATE:
21 June 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 22, 2000

!TITLE:
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: H5000]




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell ) for bringing this amendment to the floor, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior ). This is a crucial amendment. It is vital that we pass it.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:2
This is truly a civil libertarian issue. It does go back to 1215 with the Magna Carta. It is not an American invention, that people should be protected and not convicted on secret information. This is not something new. However, it has been abused for hundreds of years at least. It has been abused by totalitarian governments.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:3
Now, many may say today that this is not a big deal; this is not going to affect the American citizens; it is just a couple of poor old immigrants that may be affected. But what is the motivation for the national ID card? It’s good motivation to make sure there are no illegal immigrants coming in. So it’s said we need a national ID card. But who suffers from a national ID card? Maybe some immigrants, and maybe there will be an illegal one caught? But who really suffers? The American people. Because they will become suspect, especially maybe if they look Hispanic or whatever.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:4
Well, who suffers here? Well, first the immigrant who is being abused of his liberties. But then what? Could this abuse ever be transferred to American citizens? That is the real threat. Now, my colleagues may say, oh, no, that would never happen. Never happen. But that is not the way government works. Government works with incrementalism. It gets us conditioned, gets us to be soft on the protection of liberty.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:5
Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of government and the efficiency of government comes second to the protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with good intentions.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:6
The national ID card is done with good intention. Those who oppose us on this amendment, I think they are very, very sincere, and they have justifiable concerns and we should address these. But quite frankly, killing and murder for a long time, up until just recently, was always a State matter. This is rather a new phenomenon that we as a Federal Government have taken over so much law enforcement. That is why the Federal Government, when it sets this precedent, is very bad.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:7
So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to convict anyone in an American court.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 57:8
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 26, 2000

!TITLE:
TRIBUTE TO REVEREND MONSIGNOR CLYDE HOLTMAN


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: E1118]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 58:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Rev. Msgr. Clyde Holtman on the occasion of his retirement. The Reverend Holtman was born in Westphalia, Texas. He was also baptized, made his First Communion, was confirmed, was ordained to the priesthood May 15, 1949, and offered his first Mass in the Church of the Visitation in that same community.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 58:2
    * Msgr. Holtman has served in eleven parishes in the Austin Diocese for over 50 years. He has also served as Dean of the LaGrange Deanery, Judge of the Marriage Tribunal, Diocesan Resettlement Director, Diocesan Consultant and President of the Infirm Priest’s Fund.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 58:3
    * On May 30, 1985, Msgr. Holtman was invested as a Prelate of Honor in the Church by Pope John Paul II.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 58:4
    * Msgr. Holtman has touched thousands of lives in the central Texas area. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Reverend Holtman on his retirement.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 26, 2000

!TITLE:
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: H5142]




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:2
There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:3
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:4
It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and the judicial branch for interpreting them, period.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:5
A serious act of misconduct on the administration occurred when the Smith & Wesson agreement was settled. The executive branch acted as the legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of litigation. The egregious agreement will require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days regardless of make, require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of any firearm, mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight commission created by the settlement agreement, and does not allow unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:6
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:7
The BATF, which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun owners, will play an integral part on the oversight commission of gun owners by the agreement.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 59:8
    * The BATF will require all employees of dealers to attend annual training courses. In these training courses, the BATF gives the final say as to what can be taught and what will be excluded. Each employee must also complete an examination of which its contents will be closely reviewed by the oversight commission and make its own changes as it sees fit. In essence, they are acting as the ‘thought-control’ police. This sounds very Orwellian to me and far from what Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, ‘The great objective is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 59:9
    * Let us not forget past calamities against U.S. citizens from over zealous federal agents in trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress. Members of the House, you must remember the oath that you swore to uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer. By what authority does the administration set up this new commission, what check will be placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in these changes. Why should we hand over our authority to another branch of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our citizens?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 59:10
    * These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business — and have no authority — to mandate how a company runs its business.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 59:11
    * Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. Please stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and vote for the Hostettler Amendment and support H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 59:12
I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that we can pass this overwhelmingly.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 29, 2000

!TITLE:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000


------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is an imperfect rule, but this bill needs to be brought to the floor.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:2
H.R. 1304 is the only bill that I have seen in the last 3 years, probably in the last 30 years, that would move us in a proper direction for health care in this country. For 30 years now we have moved in the direction, not toward socialized medicine, we do not have socialized medicine, we have a mess. We have a monster we created called ‘medical management.’ But we have moved toward corporate medicine.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:3
Who are the greatest opponents of H.R. 1304? The HMOs and the insurance companies.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:4
All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:5
Mr. Speaker, this has given me a small bit of hope. I am thankful the leadership was willing to bring this bill to the floor tonight. We should go through, get the rule passed, and vote on this. This is the only thing that has offered any hope to preserve and to restore the doctor-patient relationship.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:6
We need this desperately. We do not need to support the special corporate interests who get the money. The patient does not get the care. The doctors are unhappy. The hospitals are unhappy. And who lobbies against this? Corporate interests. This is total destruction of the doctor-patient relationship.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 60:7
All we want to ask for is the freedom to associate and the freedom to contract. If they do not want to become a union, doctors do not have to. They had the power to become unions in the 19th century, but under ethical conditions they did not. Nobody tells doctors that they have to, if we remove this obstacle.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000

!DATE:
June 29, 2000
QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:1
    * Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:2
    * Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:3
    * As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:4
    * One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, it, like existing antitrust laws, are an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:5
    * Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:6
    * By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:7
    * Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Congress will follow up on its action today by empowering patients to control their health care by providing all Americans with access to Medical Saving Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they found most beneficial to them, the HMO monster would wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 61:8
    * In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to American’s health care professionals. Antitrust laws are no more legitimate or constitutional in the health care market than they are on the software market. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will not just pass this bill but will also support my Market Process Restoration Act and exempt all Americans from antitrust laws. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free-market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar through means such as Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and individual health care tax credits.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
29 June 2000

!TITLE:
THE FAMILY HEALTH TAX CUT ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: E1170]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:1
    * Mr. Speaker, today I attempted to help working Americans provide for their children’s health care needs by introducing the Family Health Tax Cut Act. The Family Health Tax Cut Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child’s health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:2
    * The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide their employees health insurance. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition, such as cancer or a physical disability, which requires long-term or specialized health care.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:3
    * As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code: Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress’ refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes their only recourse to health care is the local emergency room.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:4
    * Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Family Health Tax Cut Act they would be better able to provide care for their children and our nation’s already overcrowded emergency room facilities would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford any other alternative.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:5
    * According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above 18,000 dollars a year or single income filers with incomes slightly above 15,000 dollars per year. Clearly this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:6
    * Under the Family Health Tax Cut Act, a struggle single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs; while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:7
    * Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child tax relief in order to help them better meet their child’s medical expenses. I would ask any of my colleagues who would say that we cannot enact the Family Tax Cut Act because it would cause the government to lose too much revenue, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working-class parents of a sick child?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 62:8
    * The Family Health Tax Cut Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Family Health Tax Cut Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History

!DATE:
July 10, 2000
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF EDUCATION IN UNITED STATES HISTORY

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:1
    * Madam Speaker, I rise to address two shortcomings of S. Con. Res. 129. I am certainly in agreement with the sentiments behind this resolution. The promotion of knowledge about, and understanding of, American history are among the most important activities those who wish to preserve American liberty can undertake. In fact, I would venture to say that with my work with various educational organizations, I have done as much, if not more, than any other member of Congress to promote the study of American history.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:2
    * Unfortunately, while I strongly support efforts to increase the American public’s knowledge of history, I cannot support a resolution claiming to encourage Americans to embrace their constitutional heritage, while its very language showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of America’s founders and the drafters of the United States Constitution. Popular acceptance of this misunderstanding of the founders’ thought is much more dangerous to American liberty than an inability to name the exact date of the Battle at Bunker Hill.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:3
    * In particular, the resolution refers to American ‘democracy’ and the ‘democratic’ principles upon which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scored as ‘intrusions on the will of the majority.’ Thus in a democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an individual’s right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or even raise ones’ children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:4
    * In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:5
    * Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens’ rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people’s fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:6
    * Secondly, it is not the proper role of the United States Congress to dictate educational tenets to states and local governments. After all, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any power to dictate, or even suggest, curriculum. Instead the power to determine what is taught in schools is reserved to states, local communities, and, above all, parents.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 63:7
    * In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 13, 2000

!TITLE:
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS


------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:1
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Paul:



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:2
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert the following:
TITLE VII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:3
Sec. 701. (a) Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for–


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:4
(1) population control educational programs or population policy educational programs;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:5
(2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:6
(A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:7
(B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:8
(C) family planning counseling;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:9
(3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:10
(4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control.
(b) Additional Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to any organization which promotes or makes available–


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:11
(1) population control educational programs or population policy educational programs;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:12
(2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:13
(A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:14
(B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:15
(C) family planning counseling;


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:16
(3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:17
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:18
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:19
More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:20
So, in a very serious way, we subsidize and support abortion to any country that participates once we send them funds. This amendment addresses that by striking all these funds which are allocated for population control.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:21
Population control and birth control in many of these nations is a serious personal affront to many of their social mores in these countries. Also, it is an affront to the American taxpayer because it requires that American taxpayers be forced through their taxing system to subsidize something they consider an egregious procedure. That is abortion. These funds go to paying for IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, spermicides, condoms.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:22
Just recently a study came out that showed that the spermicidal, the nonoxynol-9, is something that is paid for with these funds. Unfortunately, this spermicidal enhances the spread of AIDS. Talk about unintended consequences. Here we are, the other side, who likes this kind of spending, they do it with good intentions; and at the same time, it literally backfires and spreads AIDS inadvertently.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:23
For this reason, I offer this amendment to strike all these funds because there is no other way to stop the use of these funds once the funds get there, no matter what the restrictions are.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:24
The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from $385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don’t. We put prohibitions. They’re not allowed to use it for abortion.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:25
That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don’t do it and you shouldn’t do it and we’re not authorizing you to do it, we have to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this manner.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 64:26
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Birth Control Funding

!DATE:
13 July 2000

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. LOWEY) has expired. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 1 minute remaining.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 65:2
Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the Constitution we are not permitted to do these things.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 65:3
I agree with much of what has been said. I believe in birth control, and believe it should be voluntary. But this is not voluntary on the part of the American taxpayer. They are the ones who suffer the consequence of the involuntary compulsion of the tax collector coming and compelling the American taxpayer to fund things that they find immoral and wrong. That is the lack of voluntary approach that you have.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 65:4
Yes, there are a lot of good intentions. I think that is very good. But there are a lot of complications that come from these procedures. As I mentioned before, this nonoxynol, it is spermicidal, and it increases the spread of AIDS. Good intentions, unintended consequences. The American taxpayers are subsidizing this.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 65:5
What we are saying is that there is better approach. There is a voluntary approach through donations, through our churches. But not through the compulsion of the IRS telling the American taxpayers that they are compelled to pay for an egregious act that they find personally abhorrent.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 19, 2000

!TITLE:
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000


------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 66:2
H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening this Pandora’s box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously threatened by majority whims.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 66:3
The bill calls for Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand surveillance in order to enforce the proposed law. In order to enforce this bill (should it become law), law enforcement would have to obtain access to an individual’s computer to know if one is gambling online. Perhaps Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law enforcement agents in the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy on their customers under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of intrusion that caused such a popular backlash against the ‘Know Your Customer’ proposal.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 66:4
Several States have already addressed the issue, and Congress should recognize States’ rights. The definition of ‘gambling’ in the bill appears narrow but could be ‘reinterpreted’ to include online auctions or even day trading (a different sort of gambling). Those individuals who seek out such thrills will likely soon find a good substitute which will justify the next round of federal Internet regulation.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Social Security Tax Relief Act

!DATE:
27 July 2000
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 27, 2000



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:2
Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:3
Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:4
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:5
Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 67:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000

!DATE:
27 July 2000
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 27, 2000



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:2
Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:3
Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:4
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:5
Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 68:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). 1 also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America

!DATE:
September 6, 2000
MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS REGARDING COLOMBIA IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AMERICA

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. Speaker, those of us who warned of the shortcomings of expanding our military presence in Colombia were ignored when funds were appropriated for this purpose earlier this year. We argued at that time that clearly no national security interests were involved; that the Civil War was more than 30 years old, complex with three factions fighting, and no assurance as to who the good guys were; that the drug war was a subterfuge, only an excuse, not a reason, to needlessly expand our involvement in Colombia; and that special interests were really driving our policy: Colombia Oil Reserves owned by American interests, American weapons manufacturers, and American corporations anxious to build infrastructure in Colombia.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:2
Already our foolish expanded pressure in Colombia has had a perverse effect. The stated purpose of promoting peace and stability has been undermined. Violence has worsened as factions are now fighting more fiercely than ever before for territory as they anticipate the full force of U.S. weapons arriving.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:3
The already weak peace process has been essentially abandoned. Hatred toward Americans by many Colombians has grown. The Presidents of 12 South American countries rejected outright the American-backed military operation amendment aimed at the revolutionary groups in Colombia.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:4
This foolhardy effort to settle the Colombian civil war has clearly turned out to be a diplomatic failure. The best evidence of a seriously flawed policy is the departure of capital. Watching money flows gives us a market assessment of policy; and by all indication, our policy spells trouble.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:5
There is evidence of a recent large-scale exodus of wealthy Colombians to Miami. Tens of thousands of Colombians are leaving for the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Spain, Australia. These are the middle-class and upper-class citizens, taking their money with them. Our enhanced presence in Colombia has accelerated this exodus.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:6
Our policy, unless quickly and thoroughly reversed, will surely force an escalation of the civil war and a dangerous increase in our involvement with both dollars and troops. All this will further heighten the need for drug sales to finance all factions of the civil war. So much for stopping the drug war.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:7
Our policy is doomed to fail. There is no national security interest involved; therefore, no goals can be set and no victory achievable. A foreign policy of non-intervention designed only to protect our sovereignty with an eagerness to trade with all nations willing to be friends is the traditional American foreign policy and would give us the guaranteed hope of peace, the greatest hope of peace and prosperity.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 69:8
Let us think seriously about our foreign policy, and hopefully someday we will pursue a policy in the best interest of America by minding our own business.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

!DATE:
September 7, 2000
UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 70:1
    * Mr. Chairman, I rise today in hesitant opposition to H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act. We as vigilant Americans must never forget the horrific lessons of the past and those attendant consequences of corporatism, fascism, and tyrannical government; that is, governmental deprivation of individual rights. A government which operates beyond its proper limits of preserving liberty never bodes well for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Particularly, Adolph Hitler’s tyrannical regime is most indicative of the necessary consequences of a government dominated by so-called ‘government-business’ partnerships, gun-confiscation schemes, protectionism, and abandonment of speech and religious freedom in the name of ‘compelling government interests.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 70:2
    * Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 70:3
    * Evidence that such private contributions can properly memorialize this most important historical abhorration can be found given that this museum receives approximately $20 million in private donations annually.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 70:4
    * Mr. Chairman, while I agree it is most important to remember and memorialize with a heavy heart the consequences of tyrannical governments operating beyond their proper limits, ignoring our own government’s limits of power and, thus, choosing a means incompatible with its ends to do so must not be tolerated. Hence, I must oppose H.R. 4115.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000

!DATE:
September 7, 2000
CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2000

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act. While I applaud the sections of the bill providing increased flexibility to states to ensure that child support payments go to benefit children, rather than government bureaucrats, other provisions of H.R. 4678 present grave dangers to individual liberty, privacy, constitutional government and the sanctity of the American family.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:2
    * I am particularly disturbed by the language expanding the use of the National Directory of New Hires, popularly known as the ‘new hires database’, in order to more effectively administer the unemployment compensation system and deny visas and residency to non-citizens who are delinquent in child support payments. Identifying persons who are failing to fulfill their legal obligation to pay child support is a worthy goal, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over four thousand babies in my over thirty year medical career, words cannot express the contempt I hold for those who would refuse to support their children. Similarly, preventing fraud in the unemployment program is obviously important to the nation’s employers and employees whose taxes finance the unemployment insurance system.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:3
    * However much I share the goals meant to be accomplished by the expanded uses of the database, I must remind my colleagues that the road to serfdom, like the road to hell, is paved with noble purposes and good intentions. Expanding the use of the new hires database brings us closer to the day when the database is a universal tracking system allowing government officials easy access to every individual’s employment and credit history. Providing the government with that level of power to track citizens is to invite abuse of individual liberties.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:4
    * The threat of the expansion of the new hires database is magnified by the fact that it uses on the social security number, which has become for all intents and purposes a de facto national ID number. In addition to threatening liberty, forcing Americans to divulge their uniform identifier for inclusion in a database also facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. In order to protect American citizens from both private and public criminals I have introduced legislation, H.R. 220, restricting the use of the social security number to purposes related to social security administration so that the government cannot establish databases linked by a common identifier.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:5
    * I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:6
    * In a free society, constitutional limits on government power and the liberty of citizens must never be sacrificed to increase the efficiency of any government program, no matter how noble the program’s goal. Again I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the dangerous road toward the loss of liberty begins when members of Congress put other goals ahead of our oath to preserve the Constitution and protect the liberty of our constituents.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:7
    * While the expanded use of the new hires database provides sufficient justification for constitutionalists to oppose this bill, H.R. 4678 also must be opposed as it furthers the intrusion of the federal government into family life through the use of federal funds to support ‘fatherhood programs.’ Mr. Speaker, the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor institutionally competent to promote responsible fatherhood. In fact, by leveling taxes on responsible parents to provide special programs for irresponsible parents the federal government is punishing responsible fathers!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:8
    * Federal programs promoting responsible fatherhood are another example of how the unintended consequences of government interventions are used to justify further expansions of state power. After all, it was the federal welfare state which undermined the traditional family as well as the ethic of self-responsibility so vital to maintaining a free society. In particular, the welfare state has promoted the belief that the government (re: taxpayer) has the primary responsibility for child-rearing, not the parents. When a large number of citizens view parenting as proper function of the central state it is inevitable that there will be an increase in those who fail to fulfill their obligations as parents. Without the destructive effects of the welfare state, there would be little need for federal programs to promote responsible fatherhood.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:9
    * Instead of furthering federal involvement in the family, Congress should stop pumping the narcotic of welfare into America’s communities by defunding federal bureaucracies and returning responsibility for providing assistance to those institutions best able to provide help without fostering an ethic of irresponsibility and dependancy: private charities and churches.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:10
    * Certain of my colleagues will say that this bill does promote effective charity through expansion of the ‘charitable choice’ program where taxpayer funds are provided to ‘faith-based’ institutions in order to administer certain welfare programs. While I have no doubt that churches are better able to foster strong families than federal bureaucrats, I am concerned that providing taxpayer funding for religious institutions will force the institutions to water-down their message — thus weakening the very feature that makes these institutions effective in the first place!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:11
    * Furthermore, providing taxpayers dollars to secular institutions violates the rights of taxpayers not to be forced to subsidize beliefs that may offend them. As Thomas Jefferson said ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 71:12
    * In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called ‘charitable choice’ program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America’s children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
7 September 2000

!TITLE:
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Pages: E1412]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:2
    * Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:3
    * Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of ‘double taxation.’ Furthermore, ‘taxing’ benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a ‘shell game’ which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:4
    * Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:5
    * Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 72:6
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000

!DATE:
September 12, 2000
FSC REPEAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL INCOME EXCLUSION ACT OF 2000

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H7428]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:1
    * Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4986, brought up under suspension, deserves serious consideration by all Members.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:2
    * There are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:3
    * Although this legislation deals with taxes and technically actually lower taxes, the reason the bill has been brought up has little to do with taxes per se. To the best of my knowledge there has been no American citizen making any request that this legislation be brought to the floor. It was requested by the President to keep us in good standing with the WTO.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:4
    * We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization — the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:5
    * The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/00, ‘After a breakdown of talks last week, a multi billion-dollar trade war is now about certain to erupt between the European union and the U.S. over export tax breaks for U.S. companies, and the first shot will likely be fired just weeks before the U.S. election.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:6
    * Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:7
    * The Europeans are expected to file suit against the United States in the WTO within 30 days of this legislation going in to effect.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:8
    * This legislation will perpetuate the trade war and certainly support the policies that have created the chaos of the international trade negotiations as was witnessed in Seattle, Washington.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:9
    * The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:10
    * The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:11
    * On this issue the WTO ruled against the United States both initially and on appeal. We have been given till October 1st to accommodate our laws to the demands of the WTO.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:12
    * That’s the sole reason by this legislation is on the floor today.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:13
    * H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:14
    * millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:15
    * The United States is now rotating the goods that are to receive the 100 to 200 percent tariff in order to spread the pain throughout the various corporations in Europe in an effort to get them to put pressure on their governments to capitulate to allow American beef and bananas to enter their markets. So far the products that we have placed high tariffs on have not caused Europeans to cave in. The threat of putting high tariffs on cashmere wool is something that the British now are certainly unhappy with.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:16
    * The Europeans are already well on their way to getting their own list ready to ‘scare’ the American exporters once they get their permission in November.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:17
    * In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:18
    * Congress has also been anxious to block the Voice Stream Communications planned purchase by Deutch Telekom, a German government-owned phone monopoly. We have not yet heard the last of this international trade fight.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:19
    * The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratchening up the trade war.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:20
    * Americans are especially unhappy with the French who have refused to eliminate their farm subsidies — like we don’t have any in this country.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:21
    * The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:22
    * The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting ‘free trade’ it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 73:23
    * Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Scouting For All Act

!DATE:
September 12, 2000
SCOUTING FOR ALL ACT

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H7455]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:1
    * Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves debating an intolerance-laden bill advanced by those who will claim to be the ‘tolerant’ ones. What the bill’s proponents are really saying is that they are intolerant of an individual’s freedom to associate with those whom they, as individuals, see fit. Two vital issues are raised by this bill’s ascendancy to the House floor. The first is that of our constitutional right to freedom of association. The second being the notion of ‘federal charters.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:2
    * On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America was within its rights when the private organization expelled an adult scout leader because he was gay. In its five-to-four opinion, the court found that requiring the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals violated the group’s free association rights.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:3
    * Nevertheless, this Congress has decided to bring to the floor a bill attempting to penalize this private group of citizens for exercising their first amendment ‘freedom of association’ rights. This is very close to denying the very right itself. To the extent the Boy Scouts should be penalized for their exercise of free association (or exclusion in this case), that penalty should only manifest itself through other private citizens exercising their freedom not to associate with individuals or groups whose associations (or lack therof) they find offensive.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:4
    * As to the ‘federal charter’, where do we find authority for the federal government to charter organizations it deems ‘honorable’? To the extent the ‘charter’ is an honorary title awarded by Congress to organizations which is then ultimately used to threaten exercise of the right to freedom of association, I suggest we repeal not only the Boy Scout’s charter but all federal charters such that they won’t be used as tools of federal meddling.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:5
    * While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for merely exercising their constitutional rights — or as syndicated columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 74:6
    * I think that it’s time for all patriotic organizations that have these federal charters to surrender those documents. It is impossible for a dishonorable organization to honor anyone. And these charters are, practically speaking, worthless. If the federal government believes that mindless non-discrimination trumps morality, then it’s time to disassociate from such bad company.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Literacy Involves Families Together Act

!DATE:
September 12, 2000
LITERACY INVOLVES FAMILIES TOGETHER ACT

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H7468]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why Congress should reject the Literacy Involves Families Together (LIFT) Act (House Resolution 3222), which aims to increase ‘family literacy’ by directing money from the American taxpayer to Washington and funneling a small percentage of it back to the states and localities to spend on education programs that meet the specifications of DC-based bureaucrats. While all support the goal of promoting adult literacy, especially among parents with young children, Congress should not endorse supporting the unconstitutional and ineffective means included in this bill. If Congress were serious about meaningful education reform, we would not even be debating bills like H.R. 3222. Rather, we would be discussing the best way to return control over the education dollar to the people so they can develop the education programs that best suit their needs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:2
    * Several of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee have expressed opposition to the LIFT Act’s dramatic increase in authorized expenditures for the Even Start family literacy programs. Of course, I share their opposition to the increased expenditure, however, my opposition to this bill is based not as much on the authorized amount but on the bill’s underlaying premise: that the American people either cannot or will not provide educational services to those who need them unless they are forced to do so by the federal government.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:3
    * In contrast to the drafters of the LIFT bill, I do not trust the Congress to develop an education program that can match the needs of every community in the United States. Instead, I trust the American people to provide the type of education system that best suits their needs, and the needs of their fellow citizens, provided Congress gives them back control over the education dollar.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:4
    * The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that the federal government was incapable of effectively providing services such as education. This is why they carefully limited the federal government’s powers to a few narrowly defined areas. This understanding of the proper role of the federal government was reinforced by the tenth amendment which forbids the Federal Government from controlling education, instead leaving authority over education in the hands of states, local communities and parents.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:5
    * Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the federal government and I am here to help you,’ the American education system has deteriorated in the years since Congress disregarded the constitutional limitations on centralizing education in order to ‘improve the schools.’ One could argue that if the federally-controlled schools did a better job of educating children to read, perhaps there would not be a great demand for ‘adult literacy programs!’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:6
    * Of course, family literacy programs do serve a vital purpose in society, but I would suggest that not only would family literacy programs exist, they would better serve those families in need of assistance if they were not controlled by the federal government. Because of the generosity of the American people, the issue is not whether family literacy programs will be funded but who should control the education dollars; the American people or the federal government?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:7
    * Mr. Speaker, rather than give more control over education to the people, H.R. 3222 actually further centralizes education by attaching new requirements to those communities receiving taxpayer dollars for adult literacy programs. For example, under this bill, federally-funded Even Start programs must use instruction methods based on ‘scientific research.’ While none question the value of research into various educational methodologies, it is doubtful that the best way to teach reading can be totally determined through laboratory experiments. Learning to read is a complex process, involving many variables, not the least of which are the skills and abilities of the individual.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:8
    * Many effective techniques may not be readily supported by ‘scientific research.’ Therefore, this program may end up preventing the use of many effective means of reading instruction. The requirement that recipients of federal funds use only those reading techniques based on ‘scientific research,’ (which in practice means those methods approved by the federally-funded ‘experts’) ensures that a limited number of reading methodologies will, in essence, be ‘stamped with federal approval.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:9
    * In addition to violating the United States Constitution, the LIFT bill raises some serious questions regarding the relationship between the state and the family. Promoting family literacy is a noble goal but programs such as these may promote undue governmental interference in family life. Many people around the country have expressed concern that ‘parenting improvement’ programs have become excuses for the government bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective control over child-rearing to the government. While none of these complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even Start does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the federal government to interfere with the parent-child relationship to ‘improve’ parenting. Once one accepts that premise, it is a short jump to interfering in all aspects of family life in order to promote the federal government’s vision of ‘quality parenting.’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:10
    * In order to give control over education back to the American people, I have introduced several pieces of legislation that improve education by giving the American people control over their education dollar. For instance my Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses incurred in sending their children to public, private, or home school. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides a tax donation of up to $3,000 for cash or in-kind donations to public or private schools as well as for donations to elementary and secondary scholarships. I am also cosponsoring legislation (H.R. 969) to increase the tax donations for charitable contributions, as well as several bills to provide tax credits for adult job training and education.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:11
    * Unleashing the charitable impulses of the American people is the most effective means of ensuring that all Americans have access to the quality education programs they need, and to make sure that those programs are tailored to meet the particular needs of the local communities and the individuals they serve.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 75:12
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to reject the LIFT Act and instead embrace a program of education and charitable tax credits that will give the American people the ability to provide for the education needs of their children and families in the way that best suits the unique circumstances of their own communities.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
September 14, 2000

!TITLE:
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1493]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:2
    * Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:3
    * Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of ‘double taxation.’ Furthermore, ‘taxing’ benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a ‘shell game’ which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:4
    * Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:5
    * Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 76:6
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). 1 also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 18, 2000

!TITLE:
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:2
On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was ratified, the President of the United States would act independently of Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a major role of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy implicated the power to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:3
At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America’s participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United Nations’ participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several rules by which America’s participation would be governed. Among those rules was the requirement that before the President of the United States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:4
Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than real. Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and again presented Congress with already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress’s hand to support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation’s servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking congressional approval of the use of the United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United Nations Security Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the deployment of United States Armed Forces in that service.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:5
This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:6
As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although the U.N. charter specifies that none of its provisions ‘shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,’ nothing has ever been found so ‘essentially domestic’ as to exclude U.N. intrusions.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:7
The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nations’ jurisdictional claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national borders, the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals. In a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization of domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, ‘Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The United Nations’ achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm,’ and this is Annan’s words, ‘that must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:8
Although such a wholesale transfer of United States sovereignty to the United Nations as envisioned by Secretary General Annan has not yet come to pass, it will, unless Congress takes action.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:9
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act is my answer to this problem.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:10
To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations’ major source of funds. America’s problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation’s Charter which — from the beginning — was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never ‘made under the Authority of the U.S.,’ as required by Article VI.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:11
H.R. 1146 — The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,’ lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments.
An excerpt from Herbert W. Titus’ Constitutional Analysis of the United Nations



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:12
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations of which I have provided this excerpt:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:13
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:14
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:15
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:16
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:17
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1-10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:18
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:19
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:20
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ‘We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:21
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:22
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648-52.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:23
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:24
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:25
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:26
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:27
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:28
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:29
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 77:30
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 20, 2000

!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL RURAL HOSPITAL PRESERVATION ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1536]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Essential Rural Hospital Preservation Act. This legislation provides a cost-effective means of providing assistance to those small rural hospitals who are struggling with the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. As those of us who represent rural areas can attest to, rural hospitals are desperately in need of such assistance. According to a survey conducted by Texas CPAs in April of 2000, the operating margin for hospitals outside a Standard Metropolitan Area with under 50 licensed beds pre-BBA was $26,000,000 while the operating margin post-BBA was negative $7,900,000. Reimbursement has been reduced by over $34 million since the BBA, while at the time the average rural hospital has incurred uncompensated and charity charges of $1.1 million since the changes contained in the Balanced Budget Act went into effect. Unless action is taken this year to provide assistance for these hospitals, many of them will be forced to close their doors, leaving many rural areas without access to hospital services.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:2
    * I believe I can speak for all of my colleagues when I say that while none of us want to endanger the Medicare trust fund, we also want to ensure that Medicare reforms do not drive valuable health care providers into bankruptcy. After all, denying Medicare recipients in rural areas access to quality health care breaks the promise the government makes to the American people when it requires them to pay taxes to finance the Medicare trust fund that they will receive quality health care in their golden years.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:3
    * Therefore, I am pleased to advance this proposal, which was developed by experts in rural health care in my district, which provides help for rural health care without endangering the soundness of the Medicare trust fund. The proposal consists of four simple changes in current Medicare laws for ‘Essential Service Hospitals.’ An Essential Service Hospital is defined as a hospital located in a non-Metropolitan Statistical Area with 50 state-licensed beds or less. The specifics of the legislation are:



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:4
    * 1. A wage index for Essential Service Hospitals set at 1.0 — Essential Service Hospitals receive 26 percent less Medicare Reimbursement than hospitals in MSA area. This places rural areas at disadvantage in competing for high-quality employees with hospitals in urban areas. Setting the wage index at 1.0 will enhance the ability of rural hospitals to attract the best personal and thus ensure residents of rural areas can continue to receive quality health care.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:5
    * 2. Allow Essential Service Hospitals to treat 100 percent of Medicare copay and deductions which become hospital bad debts as an allowable cost — The BBA of 1997 reduced the amount of bad debts incurred because of uncollected Medicare copayments and deductions that hospitals can submit to Medicare for reimbursement as an allowable cost. This places an especially tough burden on Essential Service Hospitals which often have a high percentage of bad debts because they tend to have a high percentage of low-income populations among their clientele.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:6
    * 3. Exempt Essential Service Hospitals from the Outpatient Payment System (PPS) — Since rural hospitals lack the volume necessary to achieve a fair reimbursement rate under PPS, it makes no sense to apply PPS to these hospitals. Exempting Essential Service Hospitals from PPS assures that they will have their reimbursement rate determined by a formula that matches their unique situation.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:7
    * 4. Provides a 20 percent Medicare Disproportionate Share (DSH) payment to Essential Service Hospitals — Since small rural hospitals tend to serve a larger number of low-income persons than the average hospital, they have a particular need for Medicare DSH payments. However, many of these hospitals are not benefiting from the DSH program, this legislation will help ensure these hospitals received the support from Medicare they need to continue providing vital health care to low-income residents of rural areas.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 78:8
    * Considering that the BBA of 1997 has resulted in Medicare savings of over $50 billion more than projected by Congress surely it is not to much to ask that Congress ensure Medicare patients in rural areas are not denied access to quality health care services because of the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Amendment. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for rural hospitals by cosponsoring the Essential Rural Hospital Preservation Act.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 21, 2000

!TITLE:
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1555]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 79:1
    * Mr. Speaker, because September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month this is an excellent time to reflect on the problems faced by working parents struggling to meet the needs of a child stricken with cancer. I am sure that all would agree that there are few Americans more in need of tax relief than families forced to devote every available resource to caring for a child with a terminal illness such as cancer. This is why I have introduced the Family Health Tax Cut Act (H.R. 4799). This legislation provides a $3,000 tax credit to parents caring for a child with cancer, another terminal disease, or any other serious health condition requiring long-term care. H.R. 4799 also helps all working parents provide routine health care for their children by providing them with a $500 per child tax credit.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 79:2
    * The bill will be particularly helpful to those parents whose employers cannot afford to provide their employees’ health insurance. Often-times those employees work in low-income jobs and thus must struggle to provide adequate health care for their children. This burden is magnified when the child needs special care to cope with cancer or a physical disability. Yet, thanks to Congress’ refusal to grant individuals the same tax breaks for health-care expenses it grants businesses, these hard-working parents receive little or no tax relief to help them cope with the tremendous expenses of caring for a child requiring for a child requiring long-term or specialized care.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 79:3
    * According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above 18,000 dollars a year or single income filers with incomes slightly above 15,000 dollars per year. Clearly this bill will be of the most benefit to working families balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 79:4
    * Under the Family Health Tax Cut Act, a struggling single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs; while a working-class family will have less worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 79:5
    * Mr. Speaker, it is tough enough for working families to cope with a child with a serious illness without having to sacrifice resources that should be used for the care of that child to the federal government. It is hard to think of a more compassionate action this Congress can take than to reduce taxes on America’s parents in order to allow them to help provide quality health care to their children. I therefore call on my colleagues to join me in helping working parents provide health care to their children by cosponsoring H.R. 4799, the Family Health Tax Cut Act.








2000 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 25, 2000

!TITLE:
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H8004]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H. Con. Res. 399, which celebrates the 25th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). My opposition to H. Con. Res. 399 is based on the simple fact that there is a better way to achieve the laudable goal of educating children with disabilities than through an unconstitutional program and thrusts children, parents, and schools into an administrative quagmire. Under the IDEA law celebrated by this resolution, parents and schools often become advisories and important decisions regarding a child’s future are made via litigation. I have received complaints from a special education administrator in my district that unscrupulous trial lawyers are manipulating the IDEA process to line their pockets at the expenses of local school districts. Of course, every dollar a local school district has to spend on litigation is a dollar the district cannot spend educating children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:2
    * IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:3
    * On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in a mainstream classroom graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:4
    * IDEA also provides school personal with incentives to over-identify children as learning disabled, thus unfairly stigmatizing many children and, in a vicious cycle, leading to more demands for increased federal spending on IDEA also IDEA encourages the use of the dangerous drug Retalin for the purpose of getting education subsidies. Instead of celebrating and increasing spending on a federal program that may actually damage the children it claims to help, Congress should return control over education to those who best know the child’s needs: parents. In order to restore parental control to education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. My tax credit would be of greatest benefit to parents of children with learning disabilities because it would allow them to devote more of their resources to ensure their children get an education that meets the child’s unique needs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:5
    * In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ‘Cookie Cutter’ approach. Thus, the best means of helping disabled children is to empower their parents with the resources to make sure their children receives an education suited to that child’s special needs, instead of an education that scarifies that child’s best interest on the altar of the ‘Washington-knows-best’ ideology.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 80:6
    * I therefore urge my colleagues to join with me in helping parents of special needs children provide their children with a quality education that meets the child’s needs by repealing federal mandates that divert resources away from helping children and, instead, embrace my Family Education Freedom Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Congratulating Home Educators And Home Schooled Students

!DATE:
September 26, 2000
CONGRATULATING HOME EDUCATORS AND HOME SCHOOLED STUDENTS

------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H8187]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 578, which celebrates the accomplishments of parents across the nation who have chosen to educate their children at home by designating the first week of October as ‘National Home Schooling Week.’ While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home-schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:2
    * Home schooling is becoming a popular option for parents across the country. In Texas alone, there are approximately 75,000 home schooling families educating an average of three children per household. Home schooling is producing some outstanding results. For example, according to a 1997 study the average home schooled student scores near the 19th percentile on standardized academic achievement tests in reading, mathematics, social studies, and science. Further proof of the success of home schooling is the fact that in recent years, self-identified home schoolers have scored well above the national average on both the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the American College Test (ACT). All home schooled children, regardless of race, income-level, or gender achieve these high scores.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:3
    * Contrary to media-generated stereotypes portraying home schooled children as isolated from their peers, home schooled children participate in a wide variety of social, athletic, and extra-curricular activities. Home schooling parents have formed numerous organizations designed to provide their children ample opportunity to interact with other children. In fact, recent data indicates that almost 50 percent of home schooled children engage in extra-curricular activities such as group sports and music classes, while a third of home schooled children perform volunteer work in their communities.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:4
    * Mr. Speaker, to be a home schooling parent takes a unique dedication to family and education. In many cases, home school families must forgo the second income of one parent, as well as incurring the costs of paying for textbooks, computers, and other school supplies. Home schooling parents must pay these expenses while, like All-American families, struggling to pay state, local, and federal taxes.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:5
    * In order to help home schoolers, and all parents, devote more of their resources to their children’s education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This bill provides all parents a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses. This bill will help home school parents to provide their children a first-class education in a loving home environment.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:6
    * The Family Education Freedom Act will also benefit those parents who choose to send their children to public or private schools. Parents who choose to send their children to private school may use their tax credit to help cover the cost of tuition. Parents who choose to send their children to public schools may use their tax credit to help finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities like music programs. Parents may also use the credit to pay for tutoring and other special services for their children.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:7
    * Mr. Speaker, the best way to improve education is to return control over education resources to the people who best know their children’s unique needs: those children’s parents. Congress should empower all parents, whether they choose to home school or send their child to a public or private school, with the means to control their child’s education. That is why I believe the most important education bill introduced in this Congress is the Family Education Freedom Act.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 81:8
    * In conclusion, I once again wish to express my strong support for H. Res. 578 and urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and acknowledge the accomplishments of those parents who have avoided the problems associated with an education controlled by federal ‘educrats’ by choosing to educate their children at home. I also urge my colleagues to help home schoolers, and all parents, ensure their children get a quality education by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 27, 2000

!TITLE:
GONZALES — ‘LEXINGTON OF TEXAS’


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1607]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 82:1
    * Mr. Speaker, in the town of Gonzales, Texas, on October 2, 1835, the first shot for Texas Independence was fired from a cannon by colonists waving a flag which proclaimed ‘Come and Take It.’ Gonzales became known as the ‘Lexington of Texas. ’



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 82:2
    * The Little Cannon has been recognized by many as a true and proper memento of our glorious past and has appeared in no less historic sites as the Alamo and the rotunda of the Texas Capitol, and is forever enshrined in The Great Seal of Texas.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 82:3
    * Exactly 165 years after the shot was fired, on the afternoon of October 2, 2000, the City of Gonzales will accept the ‘Come and Take It Cannon’ from the estate of Dr. Patrick J. Wagner.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 82:4
    * The Little Cannon will be an ever-present reminder to the citizens of Gonzales of the courage of those who stood at the ‘Lexington of Texas’ and first cried, ‘Come and Take It!’







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 11, 2000

!TITLE:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H9658]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 83:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Conference Report. While Federal constitutional authority clearly exists to provide for the national defense, global militarism was never contemplated by the founders. Misnamed like most everything else in Washington, the ‘Defense’ Authorization Act thus funds U.N.-directed peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia to the tune of $3.1 billion dollars, $443 million in aid to the former Soviet Union, $172 million for NATO infrastructure (the formerly defensive alliance which recently initiated force against Kosovo), and $869 million for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. military in an attempt to take our failed 1920’s prohibition experiment worldwide.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 83:2
    * Certainly a bill authorizing use of resources for the national defense which also properly compensates those military personnel necessary to maintain it would be not only constitutional but most appropriate. Contrarily, a bill which continues our elitist and failed policy of policing the world all the while creating additional enemies of the United States is neither constitutional, justifiable, supportable, nor prudent. By avoiding such a police-the-world approach, which destroys troop morale by isolating them from their families and spreading them dangerously thin, considerably less money could be authorized with seriously improved security results.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 83:3
    * Meanwhile, H.R. 3769, my bill to prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of missile silos in the United States, fails to even receive so much as a hearing. While I understand that to comply with questionable, but ratified, disarmament treaties, certain missiles may need to be deactivated, it seems ill-advised to spend money to also destroy the missile silos which may be strategically vital to our national defense at some date in the not-so-distant future.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 83:4
    * I encourage my colleagues to rethink the United States’ 20th century role of global policeman and restore instead, a policy of true national defense which will better protect their constituents, keep their constituent’s children safer and out of endless global conflicts, and reassume for taxpayers some semblance of fiscal sanity.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 11, 2000

!TITLE:
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H9806 - H9807]




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. Speaker, at a frantic pace we anxiously rush to close down this Congress with excessive legislation while totally ignoring the all-important issue of monetary policy.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:2
Congress has certainly reneged on its responsibility in this area. We continue to grant authority to a central bank that designs monetary policy in complete secrecy, inflating the currency at will, thus stealing value from the already existing currency through a dilution effect.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:3
The Federal Reserve clings to the silly notion that economic growth causes inflation, thus trying to avoid the blame it deserves. The Federal Reserve then concludes that an economic slowdown is the solution to the problem it created. Those who argue to continue the inflationary process are equally in error. As if the economy were an airplane, the monetary authorities talk about a soft landing with the false hope of painlessly paying for the excesses enjoyed for a decade.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:4
It should surprise no one that our financial markets are getting more volatile every day. Inflating a currency and causing artificially low interest rates always leads to malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt, speculation, and dangerous trade imbalances. We now live in a world awash in a sea of fiat currencies, with the dollar, the yen, and the Euro leading the way. The inevitable unwinding of the wild speculation, as reflected in the derivatives market, is now beginning.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:5
And what do we do here in the Congress? We continue to ignore our constitutional responsibility to maintain a sound dollar. Our monetary policy of the last 10 years has produced the largest financial bubble in all of history, with the good times paid for by borrowing and an illusion of wealth created in a speculative stock market. Our current account deficit, now running over $400 billion per year, and our $1.5 trillion foreign debt, has been instrumental in financing our extravagance. Be assured, the piper will be paid. The markets are clearly reflecting the excesses of the 1990s.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:6
Already we hear the pundits arguing over who is to be blamed if the markets crash or a recession hits. Some have given the current President credit for the good times we have enjoyed. If the crash comes before January, some will place the blame on him as well. If problems hit later, the next President will get the blame. But the truth is our Presidents deserve neither the credit for the good times nor the blame for the bad times.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:7
The Federal Reserve, which maintains a monopoly control over the money supply, credit and interest rates, is indeed the culprit and should be held accountable. But the real responsibility falls on the Congress, for it is Congress’ neglect that permits the central bank to debase the dollar at will.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:8
Destroying the value of a currency is immoral and remains unconstitutional. It should be illegal. And only a responsible Congress can accomplish that.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 84:9
In preparation for the time when we are forced to reform the monetary system, we must immediately begin to consider the problems that befall a nation that permits systematic currency depreciation as a tool to gain short-term economic benefits while ignoring the very dangerous long-term consequences to our liberty and prosperity.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 85

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 11, 2000

!TITLE:
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education reform debate that is sure to consume much of our time in the remaining days of the 106th Congress. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the differences between the congressional leadership and the administration are not significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposal to further nationalize education.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed, and that the best means of improving education is to put parents back in charge. According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 935, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:4
This bill creates the largest tax credit for K-12 education in the history of our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ‘consumer sovereignty.’


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:5
Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:6
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education ‘market.’ Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’ public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal ‘educrats’ while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:7
Of course, I applaud all efforts which move in the right direction such as the Education Savings Accounts legislation (H.R. 7). President Clinton’s college tax credits are also good first steps in the right direction. However, Congress must act boldly — we can ill afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block grants.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:8
One area where this Congress has so far been successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing contained in the Education Appropriations bill, and thank Mr. Goodling for his leadership in this struggle.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:9
Certain of my colleagues champion proposals to relieve schools of certain mandates so long as states and localities agree to be held ‘accountable’ to the federal government for the quality of their schools. I have supported certain of these proposals because they do provide states and localities the option of escaping certain federal mandates.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:10
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding these proposals. The primary objection to this approach, from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ‘accountability’ stressed by the plans’ proponents. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under these type of plans, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a schools’ performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined ‘performance goals,’ they will lose their limited freedom from federal mandates. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in these programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s education plan — yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:11
Even absent the ‘accountability’ provisions spending billions of taxpayer dollars on block grants is a poor way of restoring control over education to local educators and parents. Some members claim that the expenditure levels for not matter, it is the way the money is spent which is important. Contrary to the view of the well-meaning but misguided members who promote block grants, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on federal education does matter.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:12
First of all, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between states and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through federal programs or through grants. There is no ‘block grant exception’ to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:13
Furthermore, the federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:14
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core program is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:15
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:16
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the federal education bureaucracy ‘less bad.’ Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 85:17
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’s failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy read we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 12, 2000

!TITLE:
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY

------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the special order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:2
Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 years to 4 years, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions trying to sound a warning about both our foreign policy and our monetary policy. Today our monetary policy and our foreign policy have clashed. We see now that we face serious problems, not only in the Middle East, but on our financial markets.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:3
Yesterday, I talked a bit about what I see as a financial bubble that has developed over the past decade and made the point that a financial bubble can be financed through borrowing money, as well as inflation. A financial bubble is essentially a consequence of inflation. A lot of people talk about inflation being the mere rising of some prices, but that is not the case.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:4
Most good economists recognize that inflation is a consequence of monetary policy; as one increases the supply of money, it inflates the currency. This distorts interest rates, and it distorts the markets. Sometimes this goes into goods and services, and other times these excessive funds will go into marketplaces and distort the value of stocks and bonds.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:5
I believe this is what has happened for the past 10 years. Mr. Speaker, so in spite of the grand prosperity that we have had for this past decade, I believe it is an illusion in many ways, because we have not paid for it. In a true capitalist society, true wealth comes from hard work and savings.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:6
Today, the American people have a negative savings rate, which means that we get our so-called capital from a printing press, because there are no savings and no funds to invest. The Federal Reserve creates these funds to be invested. On a short-term, this seems to benefit everyone.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:7
The poor like it because they seem to get welfare benefits from it; and certainly the rich like it, because it motivates and stimulates their businesses; and politicians like it, because it takes care of deficits and it stimulates the economy.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:8
The only problem with this is it always ends, and it always ends badly. And this is the reason that we have to meet up with a policy that seems ridiculous. The economy seems to be doing quite well, but the Federal Reserve comes along and says there is a problem with economic growth. Economic growth might cause prices to go up; so, therefore, what we have to do is cut off the economic growth. If you have slower growth, the prices will not go up any longer.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:9
They are talking about a symptom and not the cause. The cause is the Federal Reserve. The problem is that the Federal Reserve has been granted authority that is unconstitutional to go and counterfeit money, and until we recognize that and deal with that, we will continue to have financial problems.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:10
We have heard that the 1990s was a different decade, it was a new era, economy, exactly what we heard throughout the decade prior to the collapse of the markets in Japan. The markets have now been down more than 50 percent in Japan for more than 10 years, and there is no sign of significant recovery there.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:11
Also there were other times in our history when they talked about a new era economy.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:12
Let me read a quote: ‘With growing optimism, they gave birth to a foolish idea called the New Economic Era. That notion spread over the whole country. We were assured that we were in a new period where the old laws of economics no longer applied.’ Herbert Hoover in his memoirs.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:13
It is an illusion to believe that the new paradigm exists. Actually, the computer industry involves 5 percent of the economy; 95 percent is what they called the old economy. I ascribe to old economic laws, because the truth is, we cannot change economic laws. And if inflating a currency distorts the market and the boom leads to the bust, that cannot be repelled.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:14
If we are looking towards bad times, it is not because of current policy, it is because of previous policy, the previous policy of the 10 years, the time when we live beyond our means. We say how did we live beyond our means? Where did the money come from? Are we not spending less than Washington? No, we are not spending less in Washington. Are not the deficits a lot less? They are less, but they are not gone.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 86:15
Where did we borrow from? We borrowed from overseas. We have a current account deficit that requires over a billion dollars a day that we borrow from foreigners just to finance our current account deficit. We are now the greatest debtor in the world, and that is a problem. This is why the markets are shaky, and this is why the markets have been going down for 6 months, and this is why in a foreign policy crisis such as we are facing in the Middle East, we will accentuate these problems. Therefore, the foreign policy of military interventionism overseas is something that we should seriously question.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
17 October 2000

!TITLE:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1845]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:1
    * Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support HR 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act. This bill takes a step toward protecting the integrity and security of the Social Security number by ensuring that window envelopes used by the Federal Government do not display an individual’s Social Security number. HR 3218 will help protect millions of Americans from the devastating crime of identity theft, which is a growing problem in my district and throughout the country.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:2
    * This bill will be partially helpful to senior citizens who rely on Social Security. These seniors could lose a lifetime’s worth of savings if a criminal obtained their Social Security number. We owe it to America’s senior citizens to make sure that they are not exposed to the risk of identity theft as a price of receiving their Social Security benefits.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:3
    * While this bill does represent a good step toward protecting privacy, I would remind my colleagues that much more needs to be done to ensure the Social Security number is not used as means of facilitating identity crimes. The increasing prevalence of identity theft is directly related to the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:4
    * For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is already a national identification number. Today, in the majority of states, no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers’ license, or receive a birth certificate for one’s child without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:5
    * Unscrupulous people have found ways to exploit this system and steal another’s identity — the ubiquity of the Social Security number paved the way for these very predictable abuses and crimes. Congress must undo the tremendous injury done to the people’s privacy and security by the federal government’s various mandates which transformed the Social Security number into a universal identifier.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:6
    * In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to ‘investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate’ American citizens. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:7
    * While much of the discussion of identity theft and related threats to privacy has concerned private sector criminals, the major threat to privacy lies in the power uniform identifiers give to government officials. I am sure I need not remind my colleagues of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies, or of the cases of government officials rummaging through the confidential files of celebrities and/or their personal acquaintances, or of the Medicare clerk who sold confidential data about Medicare patients to a Health Maintenance Organization. After considering these cases, one cannot help but shudder at the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ ‘uniform identifier’ into a database.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 87:8
    * In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I enthusiastically join in supporting HR 3218 which will help protect millions of senior citizens and other Americans from identity theft by strengthening the confidentiality of the Social Security number. I also urge my colleagues to protect all Americans from the threat of national identifiers by supporting my Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 19, 2000

!TITLE:
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1868 - E1869]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 88:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of hearing remarks made by our former House colleague, Bob Bauman of Maryland, at a meeting of the Eris Society in Colorado. Since his talk centered on banking, financial and related privacy issues pending before the Congress, I want to share his view with the House as an informed statement of the threats to financial freedom posed by the Clinton administration’s policies.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 88:2
    * Mr. Bauman, the author of several books on offshore financial topics, serves as legal counsel to The Sovereign Society (http://www.sovereignsaociety.com), an international group of citizens concerned with the government encroachment on financial freedom.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 88:3
    * Remarks of Robert E. Bauman, Eris Conference, Durango, Colorado, August 12, 2000.





!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:4
I take as my theme two quotations, one from the Gospel of St. Matthew, 20:15 — ‘Do not I have the right to do what I want with my own money?’



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:5
The second is from Mayer Amschel Rothchild (1743-1812), founder of the famous banking dynasty, the House of Rothchild, who said: ‘Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.’ Both quotes have relevance to what I have to say.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:6
If you are fortunate enough to fall into the estimated group of six million millionaires worldwide now in existence, a number noted in a study by Merrill Lynch last year, you automatically may be a criminal suspect.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:7
I say ‘suspect’ because Citibank views these wealthy people, who control approximately 21 trillion-six hundred billion dollars, as potential financial criminals simply because of their wealth. Citibank announced last year that their 40,000 private banking clients, each of whom had to prove a personal net worth of $3 million in order to qualify for the bank’s services, are watched every minute of every day to see if they may be engaged in money laundering or other financial crimes. I am certain other banks do as well.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:8
The constant surveillance is accomplished, as is most privacy invasion these days, by a special banking computer software program called ‘America’s Software’ which allows every transaction in any account to be watched constantly. It produces a daily record for bank officials, who now have certain obligations imposed by US law that require the reporting of ‘suspicious activities’ to federal agents. Transfers of large amounts of cash or other unusual account activity rings alarm bells and results in an investigation not revealed to the ‘suspect’ banking client under penalty of law.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:9
We can conclude from this Draconian arrangement, for one thing, that a person of great wealth who establishes a private banking relationship with a major bank now is presumed to be a



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:10
I was at a conference on April 22, 1999 in Miami sponsored by the respected publication, Money Laundering Alert. Lester Joseph, Assistant Chief of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said that the U.S. Government officially views any offshore financial activity by US persons — any offshore financial activity — especially the use of tax havens, as potential criminal money laundering activity.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:11
Now, it’s quite obvious that financial activities in which a person engages when wealth is moved offshore for asset protection, for broader investment potential, for any number of legitimate reasons, for possible tax savings, any of these moves, are innocent in themselves. Former Secretary of the US Treasury, Robert Rubin, admitted in congressional testimony last year, it is the intention behind these innocent financial moves that government agents want to police for possible criminal investigation and prosecution.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:12
So now we have the government money police targeting normal financial activities that until recently have been perfectly legal, simply because a person decides in his own best interests, to go offshore. We all know that in the US, African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other racial minorities have been unfairly subject to police ‘profiling.’ Add to that list of ‘presumed guilty,’ Americans who engaged in offshore financial activity.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:13
I’m not a defender of wealth per se. I wish I had wealth to defend, but I am a defender of freedom. There can be no freedom, personal or otherwise, without wealth, without the right to own and use one’s own property as one see fit. Remove property rights and you have no means to sustain life for yourself or your family. But now the acquisition and accumulation of productive wealth has become officially suspect in America.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:14
For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:15
Now we have what I call the ‘Nazification’ of the financial system, not only in America but worldwide. I don’t use that term lightly. As a matter of historic fact, the civil forfeiture laws in this country mirror in many major respects the Nazi forfeiture laws that were used to confiscate the property of the Jews. I am a member of the board of directors of Forfeiture Endangers American



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:16
The genesis of this ‘wealth=crime’ policy can be found in that infamous political and moral failure, the so-called ‘war on drugs.’ One of the primary weapons of this ill-begotten war has been civil forfeiture, where police seize cash and property based on rumor or hearsay. In 80% of the cases, the owner is never charged with any crime, but usually the police keep the loot. Many police have long since turned their attention away from drugs, and instead pursue the cash and property they use to lard their budgets. Thankfully, my former colleague, Henry Hyde of Illinois, led the successful legislative battle for some much needed civil forfeiture reform which recently became law.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:17
As part of the drug war that progressed and expanded (but is never victorious), the catch all crime of ‘money laundering’ was invented: an all purpose federal prosecutors’ dream. The anti-money laundering statutes that have grown like a malignancy. Charges of money laundering now routinely are shown in with almost every possible criminal indictment, often as a bargaining chip and/or a means to confiscate the wealth of the accused even before trial. Try hiring a good defense attorney when your bank account has been frozen.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:18
Laws enacted under the banner of the war on drugs intentionally have forced bankers to become spies for the federal financial police. The bankers’ primary allegiance now is not to customers or clients, but to the government.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:19
At the Miami conference, scores of bank officials were instructed how to question clients, watch account activity, and report any ‘suspicious activity’. Suspicious activity reports (SARs) are filed by the tens of thousands every month, produce voluminous computer records, encourage potential criminal investigations, allow prosecutors to bully citizens, but in the end very few SARs put criminals in jail. What this success process has produced is the mushrooming of federal prosecutorial staffs, US attorneys budgets, the power and costs of the US Department of Justice and the welfare of the bureaucrats and lawyers who feast at the taxpayers’ trough.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:20
That great economist, Wilhelm Roepke, once wrote: ‘It is very easy to awaken resentment against people who not only have money, but also the boldness to send that money abroad in order to protect it against all manner of domestic insecurity. It’s vital that people in their means of existence, that is, capital, still have the chance to move about internationally, and when absolutely necessary, to escape the arbitrariness of government policy by means of secret back doors.’



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:21
Consider that expressed view in the context of what is known as ‘expatriation,’ the human right to acquire a new nationality and renounce one’s old citizenship. We, as a nation of immigrants, should cherish that right.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:22
In November 1994 Forbes magazine published an infamous article which identified a handful



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:23
In truth, there are very legitimate financial reasons for an American citizen to ‘go offshore’. These include avoiding exposure to costly domestic litigation and excessive court damage judgements and jury awards, protection of assets, unreasonable SEC restrictions on foreign investments, the availability of more attractive and private offshore bank accounts, life insurance policies and annuities, avoidance of probate and reduction of estate taxes.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:24
But Americans who have followed this prudent course now find themselves lumped together with drug lords, tax cheats, dirty money launderers, disease carriers and assorted criminals. What is legal and legitimate is made to look sinister and evil.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:25
There is a decided international dimension to this domestic U.S. campaign against wealth. Beginning last June, the news media took belated notice of offshore tax havens and their thriving financial centers as a newly discovered international threat. A frenzy of publicity surrounded the serial publication of spurious ‘blacklists’ by previously unnoticed international organizations. None of these self-appointed, self-important groups enjoy any legal standing, but they proceeded to announce exactly how the international financial world should conduct its affairs. Those nations in disagreement with the OECD world view were threatened with financial boycotts and unexplained ‘sanctions’ to be imposed by June 2001.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:26
These organizations include the Paris-based organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which loudly denounces what it calls ‘harmful tax competition’ is composed of representatives from major high tax nations. An OECD subsidiary is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a sort of financial Gestapo that pronounces who is legal and who is not legal in terms of money laundering activity.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:27
Yet a third group without no basis in international law calls itself the ‘Financial Stability Forum.’ This is a subgroup of the G-7 nations and has taken it upon itself to decide which nations are good or bad in cooperation for capital flows.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:28
All of these organizations are self-anointed and don’t have any more standing than the International Tennis Association as far as legal capacity to impose their decisions. They are little more than public relations mouthpieces of an international cartel of rich nations trying to suppress tax havens and other nations that have profited from fully legal tax competition.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:29
In an obviously co-ordinated effort starting last May, these organizations each issued its own ‘blacklist’ of nations it found deficient in various ways. The FSF attached those it claimed were disruptive to international financial activity. FATF issued a list of countries allegedly lax on money laundering. The OECD came out with list of nations engaged in ‘unfair tax competition’. It was no coincidence that most of the world’s no-tax financial haven nations were on all these phony lists. A small coterie of statist bureaucrats in the financial ministries of the major nations had coordinated their propaganda work well: an uneducated, gullible global news media swallowed this phony story whole.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:30
Every one of the wealthy nations that are pushing this attack on tax havens are controlled by high-tax, socialist governments who see a tax and wealth hemorrhage occurring among their citizens. Yes, millions, billions of dollars, pounds and francs are pouring out of high tax nations flowing to offshore tax havens — and for very good reasons. Why would anyone in his right mind continue to pay confiscatory taxes when you can move your financial activity to another nation where you pay no personal or corporate income tax, no estate tax, no capital gains tax?



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:31
Ignored in this concerted attack on small tax haven nations is the simple fact that under current U.S. and UK tax laws the biggest tax savings for foreigners can be found in Britain and in the United States. The United States is one of the biggest tax havens in the world — but only for non-U.S. persons. And in spite of the known fact that most of the dirty money laundering in the world takes place in London and New York, neither nation is on the FATF money laundering blacklist.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:32
All this is really a smoke screen for increased tax collection. Feeling the tax drain, the rich nations want an end to all those factors that make tax haven attractive: They demand that taxes be imposed where there are none, want an end to financial and banking privacy and ‘free exchange’ of information, want complete ‘transparency’, and want these small nations to become tax collectors for the rich, welfare state nations. In other words, they want tax havens to become just like the profligate major nations.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:33
This new cartel of high-tax nations, limping along with their huge, unsustainable welfare state budgets, are engaged in a grotesque rebirth of colonialism and imperialism of a financial nature. They are willing to trample the sovereignty of small nations. In fact, the United Nations last year said national sovereignty must be compromised in order to impose a world financial order of high taxes and no financial privacy. Such a radical demand mocks international law. It makes vassal states out of sovereign nations.



!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 88:34
This wrong headed approach flies in the face of every development that is producing the new prosperity: the Internet, e-commerce, globalization, cross border investment worldwide. For that reason alone, this effort will fail. Just as the legendary King Canute could not hold back the ocean tides, the rich nations will be swept away in their effort to impose their will on the world.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 24, 2000

!TITLE:
PALMETTO BEND CONVEYANCE ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H10571]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:1
    * Mr. Speaker, Lake Texana (The Palmetto Bend Project), is located in my congressional district near Edna in the Texas Gulf Coast area about midway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Lake Texana supplies roughly 75,000 acre/feet per year of municipal and industrial water to a large multicounty area of Texas. The Lake Texana water is directly responsible for creating over 3,000 jobs in the cities of Edna and Victoria, Texas and water sales from the project make it financially self-sufficient.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:2
    * S. 1474 merely facilitates the early payment of the project’s construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the Lavaca Navidad River Authority and Texas Water Development Board concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economic and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:3
    * This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as $1 million per year as well as provide an immediate infusion of millions of dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:4
    * Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource. Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and boating docks, all funded without federal money. A woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:5
    * My thanks go to members and staff of both the Resources committee and the subcommittee on Energy and Water for their continued assistance with this bill as well as Senator Hutchison and her staff for working with me to move our bill in the Senate.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 89:6
    * Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request my colleague’s support for S. 1474 as passed by the Senate.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 90

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 24, 2000

!TITLE:
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H10605]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the Older Americans Act Reauthorization (H.R. 782) and explain why I must vote against this bill. Of course, I support efforts to ensure America’s senior citizens have access to employment, nutritional and other services; however the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor competent to provide such services.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:2
    * Under the tenth amendment, the federal government is forbidden from interfering in areas such as providing employment and nutritional services to any group of citizens. Thus, when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to support these services, it is violating the constitution. In a constitutional republic, good intentions are no excuse for constitutional carelessness.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:3
    * Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by involving itself in these areas, the federal government has politicized the offering of these services as well as assured inefficiencies in their delivery — inefficiencies that would not be present if the federal government respected its constitutional limits and allowed states, local communities and private citizens to provide these vital services to seniors. For example, one of the most contentious areas of this bill is the funding that goes to private organization to provide employment services. Many of these organizations are involved in partisan politics, and, because money is fungible, the federal grants to these organizations make taxpayers de facto underwriters of their political activities. As Thomas Jefferson said: ‘To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ action is inevitable whenever Congress exceeds its constitutional limitations and abuses the taxing power by forcing citizens to support the charitable activities of congressionally-favored organizations. One reason for this is that federal funding encourages these organizations to become involved in lobbying in order to gain more federal support. These organizations may even form alliances with other advocacy groups in order to build greater support for their cause.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:4
    * When social services are nationalized, there is inevitably waste and inefficiency in the distribution of the services. This is because when the government administers social services the lion’s share of those services are provided to those with the most effective lobby or those whose Congressional representative is able to exercise the most clout at appropriations time. While I applaud the efforts of certain of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee to direct resources to where they are truly needed, particularly Mr. Barrett’s efforts to bring more resources to rural areas, the politicization of social services will inevitably result in some areas receiving inadequate funding to meet their demand for those services. I have little doubt that if these programs were restored to the private sector those areas with the greatest concentration of needy seniors would receive priority over those areas with the most powerful lobby.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:5
    * There are ways to ensure that seniors have opportunities for productive lives without violating the constitution and politicizing charity. One way is to repeal the social security earnings limit, which punishes seniors who continue to work in the private sector. Another way is through generous tax credits and deductions for taxpayers who support charitable organization designed to provide services to individuals. Finally, the best way to aide the nation’s seniors, and those who are about to be seniors, is to stop raiding the nation’s social security system to finance other unconstitutional programs. This is why the first piece of legislation I introduced this year was The Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that social security monies would be spent on social security. I was also a cosponsor of the legislation to end the earnings limit, which passed the House of Representatives this year. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to allow people to use more of their own resources to help the needy by expanding the charitable tax deduction.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 90:6
    * Mr. Speaker, several years ago, when people still recognized their moral duty to voluntarily help their fellow humans rather than expect the government to coerce their fellow citizens to provide assistance through the welfare state, my parents were involved in a local Meals-on-Wheels program run by their church. I remember how upset they were when their local program was forced to conform to federal standards or close its program because Congress had decided to take control of delivering hot food to the elderly. It is time that this Congress return to the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and return responsibility for providing services to the nation’s seniors to states, communities, churches, and other private organizations who can provide those services much more effectively and efficiently than the federal government.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 91

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 25, 2000

!TITLE:
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E1919]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 91:1
    * Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the National Science Act (H.R. 4271), which violates the limits on congressional power found in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th amendment to the Constitution by using tax monies unjustly taken from the American people to promote the educational objectives favored by a few federal politicians and bureaucrats. As an OB-GYN, I certainly recognize the importance of increasing the quality of science education as well as undertaking efforts to interest children in the sciences. However, while I share the goals of the drafters of this legislation, I recognize that Congress has no constitutional authority to single out any one academic discipline as deserving special emphasis. Instead, the decision about which subjects to emphasize should be made by local officials, educators and parents.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 91:2
    * H.R. 4271 not only singles out science for special emphasis, certain positions of the bill will lead to a national science curriculum. For instance, the bill calls for the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to coordinate and disseminate information on ‘standard’ math and science curricula as well as licensing requirements for teachers of math, science, engineering or technology. While local school districts are not forced to adopt these standards, local schools will be pressured to adopt these standards because they are the ones favored by their DC-based overlords. I would also ask the drafters of this bill what purpose is served by spending taxpayer moneys to create and disseminate a model curriculum at the federal level if their intent is not to have local schools adopt the federally-approved model?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 91:3
    * I also object to the provision of this bill providing special assistance to science teachers for training and professional development as well as grants for so-called ‘Master Teachers.’ Of course, I recognize that, like other citizens, teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed. This is why I have introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 937) which provides all teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. H.R. 937 effectively raises teacher salaries by lowering their taxes. In contrast H.R. 4271 raises the salaries of certain congressionally-favored educators by effectively cutting the pay of engineers, doctors, truck drivers, waiters, and even their fellow educators. Mr. Speaker, I cannot find any constitutional nor moral justification for Congress to redistribute money to any favorite class of professionals.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 91:4
    * If the steady decline of America’s education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 91:5
    * In order to put education resources back into the hands of the American people I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This act provides a $3,000 per child tax credit for parents to help cover K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. HRs 935 and 936 move control of education resources back into the hands of the American people and help ensure parents can provide their children an excellent education. In fact, since the tax credits contained in H.R. 935 and H.R. 936 may be used to help finance the purchase of items necessary for a science education, such as labs equipment and computers, these bills will particularly benefit those citizens who wish to improve science education. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject the failed, unconstitutional command-and-control approach of H.R. 4271 and instead embrace my legislation to return control of education resources to the American people.







2000 Ron Paul Chapter 92

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 26, 2000

!TITLE:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H11260]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:1
    * Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2614 contains some very laudable tax cut measures which I strongly support. However, the bill also contains some very troubling provisions, provisions which have no place in what ought to be purely tax relief legislation. As a result, this bill represents an eleventh-hour political compromise which makes politicians feel good but does more harm than good for the American people.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:2
    * Many Members, including myself, have worked hard to bring some measure of tax relief to American families this year. We worked to pass meaningful bills which would have eliminated the marriage penalty and eliminated the harmful estate tax. We worked to increase deductions for health care expenses. We worked to increase the tax-deductible amounts individuals can contribute to their IRA and pension plans. We worked for these tax cuts because we know that American families pay too much in taxes. Tax relief has been, and should be, our guiding principle.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:3
    * Accordingly, I strongly endorse many of the provisions in this bill. I fully support the increased IRA and pension plan deduction amounts, which will benefit virtually all Americans. Tax-deductible and tax-deferred savings incentives represent the very best kind of tax reforms this Congress can make. Not only do Americans pay less in taxes with an increased deduction, they also have an increased incentive to accumulate retirement savings.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:4
    * Another worthwhile portion of this bill addresses the needs of rural hospitals, which were unfairly singled out for excessive reductions in Medicare reimbursements by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While Congress deserves a share of the blame, most of the problems experienced by rural health care providers are the result of flawed implementation of the Act by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). This administration has decimated rural health care in order to artificially prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, while avoiding reforms that would give seniors more control over their health care decisions. The administration should not play political games with Medicare trust funds at the expense of rural hospitals. By doing so, it has violated the promise of quality health care made to senior taxpayers in rural areas.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:5
    * Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased that this bill extends the Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program created in 1996. MSAs and generous health care tax deductions are critical to preserving health care freedom. Federal policies removing consumer control over health care dollars inevitably have led to increased decision making by HMOs and federal bureaucrats.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:6
    * We must restore individual control over health care dollars, and MSAs coupled with health care tax credits and deductions are an important step in the right direction. MSAs and health care tax deductions lower health care costs without sacrificing quality by motivating patients to negotiate for the highest quality care at a reasonable price.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:7
    * Similarly, today’s small business tax relief measures are commendable. We place a huge regulatory and tax burden on our nation’s small employers, many of which find it difficult simply to comply with the tax laws. I support any efforts to reduce taxes and regulations on our small entrepreneurial employers.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:8
    * Unfortunately, these positive tax relief provisions are outweighed by other measures in today’s mixed bag legislation, measures which have been agreed to only because many Members want to claim they have passed a ‘tax relief’ bill before they go home. The administration has thwarted many of our tax relief efforts through the veto process, and we apparently have decided to take whatever tax measures we can get, regardless of the price. So now we find ourselves in a position where we cobble together some less sweeping tax relief proposals which the administration will accept, and we put them in a larger bill which contains some very bad measures favored by the administration. Before we tout today’s bill, however, we ought to be honest with our constituents about the real nature of this last-minute compromise.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:9
    * The small business tax relief in this bill is more than outweighed by the provisions raising the federally-mandated minimum wage. While I certainly understand the motivation to help lower wage workers, the reality is that a minimum wage hike hurts lower income Americans the most. When an employer cannot afford to pay a higher wage, the employer has no choice but to hire less workers. As a result, young people with fewer skills and less experience find it harder to obtain an entry-level job. Raising the minimum wage actually reduces opportunities and living standards for the very people the administration claims will benefit from this legislation! It’s time to stop fooling ourselves about the basic laws of economics, and realize that Congress cannot legislate a higher standard of living. Congress should not allow itself to believe that the package of small business tax cuts will fully compensate businesses and their employees for the damage inflicted by a minimum wage hike. Congress is not omnipotent; we cannot pretend to strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and wage mandates so that no American businesses or workers are harmed. It may make my colleagues feel good to raise the minimum wage, but the real life consequences of this bill will be felt by those who can least afford diminished job opportunities.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:10
    * We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it. We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our exempting a small portion of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ‘subsidy.’ We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy — no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its foreign income. Most EU countries don’t tax their corporations on foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a subsidy is ridiculous.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:11
    * This measure clearly demonstrates how our membership in the WTO undermines our national sovereignty. I have warned this body that the WTO does not promote true free trade, but rather enforces politically influenced ‘managed trade.’ I warned this body that our agreement to abide by WTO rulings would force us to change our domestic laws. I warned this body that our participation in the WTO was unconstitutional. Yet Members scoffed at this idea. Members of the Ways and Means committee said it was ‘unthinkable’ that the U.S. Congress would change our nation’s laws because of an order by the WTO. We were told that we had to join or else we would lose the international ‘trade wars.’ Today we see our sovereignty clearly undermined, and at the same time we stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war by the EU. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:12
    * We should not change our tax laws at the behest of any body other than the U.S. Congress. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing foreign source income. Today’s FSC measure will not appease the EU; they already have indicated that the House version of this bill is unsatisfactory to them. Worst of all, this measure gives the President further unconstitutional executive order powers to make changes when demanded by the WTO in the future. Never mind that the legislative power is supposed to reside solely with Congress. We simply cede our legislative authority to the WTO when we pass this measure, and it’s shameful that it likely will go unnoticed by the American people. We ought to tell them exactly what we are doing to national sovereignty when we pass this last-minute mixed bag of tax measures.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:13
    * Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leadership for bringing this conference report to the floor. This conference report includes many important provisions to spur individual retirement savings.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:14
    * Most importantly, the report includes language that increases the IRA contribution limit, a proposal I have worked on for several years. The popularity of this issue is evidenced by the more than 222 bipartisan members who cosponsored my IRA legislation.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:15
    * For years, millions of Americans have relied on Individual Retirement Accounts to help save for a secure retirement. However, despite their past success, IRAs are in danger of becoming obsolete because inflation is destroying much of their value. Since 1981 the limit on IRAs has been frozen. Had it simply kept pace with inflation, Americans would now be able to contribute $5,068 instead of only $2,000.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 92:16
    * If IRAs are to continue to be a real help for people as they plan for their retirement years, it is past time for the federal government to allow higher contributions.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 93

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
November 13, 2000

!TITLE:
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H11866]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:1
    * Mr. Speaker, the financial markets are now nervously watching the impasse now reached in the Presidential election. Many commentators have already claimed the most recent drop in the market is a consequence of the uncertainty about the outcome of the election. Although it would be a mistake to totally dismiss the influence of the election uncertainty as a factor in the economy, it must be made clear that the markets and the economy are driven by something much more basic. We know that the markets have been off significantly for the past several months, and this drop was not related in any way to the Presidential election.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:2
    * Confidence is an important factor in the way markets work, and certainly the confusion in the Presidential election does not convey confidence to investors and to the rest of the world.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:3
    * Mises, the great 20th century economist, predicted decades before the fall of the Soviet system that socialism was unworkable and would collapse upon itself. Although he did not live to see it, he would not have been surprised to witness the events of 1989 with the collapse of the entire Communist-Soviet system. Likewise, the interventionist-welfare system endorsed by the West, including the United States, is unworkable. Even without the current problems in the Presidential election, signs of an impasse within our system were evident. Inevitably, a system that decides almost everything through pure democracy will sharply alienate two groups: the producers, and the recipients of the goods distributed by the popularly elected congresses. Our system is not only unfairly designed to take care of those who do not work, it also rewards the powerful and influential who can gain control of the government apparatus. Control over government contracts, the military industrial complex and the use of our military to protect financial interests overseas is worth great sums of money to the special interests in power.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:4
    * Even though it is argued that there are huge budget surpluses in Washington, instead of budget compromise, a stalemate results. Each side wants even a greater share of the loot being distributed by the politicians. Even with the windfall revenues, no serious suggestion is made in Washington for cuts in spending. Instead of moving toward a market economy and less dependency on the federal government in the midst of this so-called ‘prosperity,’ we continue to go World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Although in the early stages of interventionism and government planning, especially when a great deal of wealth is available for redistribution, it seems to enhance prosperity while prolonging the financial bubble on which the economy is dependent. The monetary system, both our domestic system as well as the international fiat system, plays a key role in the artificial prosperity based on inflated currencies as well as debt and speculation.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:5
    * The pretended goal of the economic planners has been economic fairness through redistribution of wealth, politically correct social consciousness, and an all-intrusive government which becomes a responsibility for personal safety, health and education while personal responsibility is diminished. The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. The concentrated effort has been to gain power through the control of wealth with a scheme that pretends to treat everybody fairly. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs are present in our system of welfarism. This election in many ways politically demonstrates this economic reality. The political stalemate reflects the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both will eventually cause deep division and hardship. The real problem-preserving of the free market and private property rights- if ignored, will only make things worse, because the only solution that will be offered in Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increase in monetary inflation, more debt, greater military activity throughout the world, and priming the economic pump with more expenditures for weapons we do not need.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:6
    * We have already seen signs of economic troubles ahead . Although the Fed plans for only a slight slow down and a so-called ‘soft landing,’ the correction from the monetary mischief of the last 10 years has already been determined. Although the dollar currently remains strong, because other currencies are so weak, there is a limitation on how long we can create new dollars without them being devalued. A weaker dollar will surely come in our not too distant future. Our huge current account deficit and trade imbalances warn us of that day.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:7
    * Government statistics continue to tell us that price inflation is not a problem, and when an inflation statistic comes out it does not like, it drops out food and energy and claims the number is totally benign. Ask any housewife, and they will tell you that the cost of living is going up steadily and much more rapidly than the government will admit. We in the Congress should be prepared for lower revenues in the future since the revenues received in the last couple of years were artificially created by a stock market that had skyrocketed due to the credit expansion by the Federal Reserve. These capital gains tax revenues will soon disappear. The savings rates of the American people are now negative. Without savings, true capital investment cannot be maintained. Creation of credit out of thin air by the Fed was the original problem, so it surely can’t be the solution.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:8
    * Even in the midst of our great imaginary budgetary surpluses, there has been no effort to cut. Once the economy tends to slow and more problems are apparent, expenditures are going to soar not only because of future problems but because of the new programs recently initiated. A huge financial bubble has been created by the GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The $33 billion of shareholder equities in these two organizations has been leveraged into $1.07 trillion worth of assets- a bubble waiting to be pricked. The Congress has reacted to all these events irresponsibly by increasing spending, increasing tax revenues, doing nothing to reduce regulations, and being totally apathetic toward the dollar and monetary policy. We in the Congress have a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the value of the dollar and to understand why it is so important to the economy that a central bank not be given the unbelievable power of inflating a currency at will and pretending that it knows how to find tune an economy through this counterfeit system of money.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:9
    * Rising interest rates in the high yield bond market is giving us an indication that a serious problem is just around the bend. Commercial debt was but $50 billion in 1994 and is now ten times higher now at $551 billion. The money supply is now growing at greater than a 10% rate and the derivatives market, although difficult to calculate, probably exceeds $75 trillion. We also have consumer debt, which is at record highs and has not yet shown signs of slowing. The Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks are now 5 times book value, the highest in over a hundred years. There will come a day when most people come to realize the fraud associated with Social Security and the inability for it to continue as currently managed. Rising oil and natural gas prices, it is argued, are not inflationary, yet they are playing havoc with the pocketbooks of most Americans. The economies of Asia, and in particular Japan, will not offer any assistance in dealing with the approaching storm in this country. Our foreign policy, which continues to obligate our support around the world, shows no signs of changing and will contribute to the crisis and possibly our bankruptcy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:10
    * What must we do? We should develop more sensible priorities. We must restore confidence in freedom and recognize how free markets can solve our problems . We must have more respect for the Rule of Law and demand that Congress, the Courts, and the President live within the Rule of Law and stop arbitrarily flaunting the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be changed, it should be changed slowly and deliberately as is permitted, but never by fiat. We must eventually reconsider the notion of the original constitutional Republic as designed by our Founders. The monolithic centralized state was not the design nor is it supported by the Constitution. We were meant to have loose knit individual states, with the states themselves managing their own affairs.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 93:11
    * The political impasse we now see with the election process, along with the divisions in the House and Senate, is surely related to the economic and budgetary impasse that plagues Washington. Since interventionism (the planned welfare state) is unworkable and will fail, the surprising developments in this presidential election will accelerate its demise. The two are obviously related.





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000

!DATE:
14 November 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with a decision to do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We have heard proponents of this FSC bill argue for tax breaks for U.S. exporters, which, of course, should be done. Those proponents, however, argue that this must be done to move the United States into compliance with a decision by the WTO tribunal. Alternatively, opponents of the bill, argue that allowing firms domiciled in the United States to keep their own earnings results in some form of subsidy to the “evil” corporations. If we were to evaluate this legislation based upon the floor debated, we would be left with the choice of abandoning U.S. sovereignty in the name of WTO compliance or denying private entities freedom from excess taxation.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:2
Setting aside the aforementioned false choice of globalism or oppression by taxation, there are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:3
Although this legislation deals with taxes and technically actually lowers taxes, the reason the bill has been brought up has little to do with taxes per se. To the best of my knowledge there has been no American citizen making any request that this legislation be brought to the floor. It was requested by the President to keep us in good standing with the WTO.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:4
We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization—the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:5
The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/00, “After a breakdown of talks last week, a multibillion- dollar trade war is now about certain to erupt between the European Union and the U.S. over export tax breaks for U.S. companies, and the first shot will likely be fired just weeks before the U.S. election.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:6
Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:7
The Europeans are expected to file suit against the United States in the WTO within 30 days of this legislation going into effect.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:8
This legislation will perpetuate the trade war and certainly support the policies that have created the chaos of the international trade negotiations as was witnessed in Seattle, Washington.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:9
The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:11
On this issue the WTO ruled against the United States both initially and on appeal. We had been given till November 1st to accommodate our laws to the demands of the WTO.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:12
H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months, the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:13
The United States is now rotating the goods that are to receive the 100 to 200 percent tariff in order to spread the pain throughout the various corporations in Europe in an effort to get them to put pressure on their governments to capitulate to allow American beef and bananas to enter their markets. So far the products that we have placed high tariffs on have not caused Europeans to cave in. The threat of putting high tariffs on cashmere wool is something that the British now are certainly unhappy with.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:14
The Europeans are already well on their way to getting their own list ready to “scare” the American exporters once they get their permission in November.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:15
In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:16
Congress has also been anxious to block the Voice Stream Communications planned purchase by Deutsche Telekom, a German government-owned phone monopoly. We have not yet heard the last of this international trade fight.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:17
The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratcheting up the trade war.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:18
Americans are especially unhappy with the French who have refused to eliminate their farm subsidies—like we don’t have any in this country.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:19
The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business. The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting “free trade” it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:20
Lastly, despite a Constitution which vests in the House authority for regulating foreign commerce (and raising revenue, i.e. taxation), this bill unconstitutionally delegates to the President the “authority” to, by Executive order, suspend the tax break by designating certain property “in short supply.” Any property so designated shall not be treated as qualifying foreign trade property during the period beginning with the date specified in the Executive order.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 94:21
Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
November 15, 2000

!TITLE:
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:1
    * The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. In this century, the British led the charge prior to World War II. Since that time it has been the United States. Although the British remain close allies of ours in intimidating the Muslim world, it is the military strength of the United States that assumes the burden of responsibility for the policy. It is justified by claiming a right and need to protect “our” oil.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:2
    * For over a thousand years the West has dominated the Middle East. During these thousand years resentment has continued, but for obvious reasons it is now being directed toward America. No one should be surprised when our ships become vulnerable and are actually blown up in the Middle East.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:3
    * If the U.S. understood the history of this region it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port. This lack of understanding of history and respect for religious beliefs of the area, in combination with our foreign policy of aggression and empire building, leads to arrogant foreign military intervention, not only in the Middle East, but around the world as well.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:4
    * It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons but instead to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:5
    * To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, or especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled and protected by warships of a foreign power, say the Russians. What would we then think if that same power patrolling the Gulf built air bases in Texas and Florida with our government=s complicity with the argument that this was necessary to protect “their” oil and with our government’s complicity? This would anger many Americans and this anger would be directed to both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters and our own government that permitted it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:6
    * As a consequence of the USS Cole incident, our Navy has recognized the great danger we face in this region. This has forced us to avoid sending any more naval vessels through the Suez Canal. The ongoing conflict cannot end peacefully as long as we pursue this policy of folly.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:7
    * The Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the senseless deaths of 17 Americans were a consequence of a policy that has led to a lack of military readiness for our country, while increasing the danger to all Americans and in particular our servicemen in that region. It’s positively amazing that with a military budget of $300 billion we do not have the ability to protect ourselves against a rubber raft, which destroyed a $1 billion vessel. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was required to try to figure out what happened. This further intrusion has only served to increase the resentment of the people of Yemen toward all Americans.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:8
    * But the Yemenis never will cooperate with our CIA and FBI agents, many of whom already have been forced to retreat and return to the States. Our insistence on invading Yemen to search for all those involved will only make our precarious situation in the Middle East worse.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:9
    * Our policy in the Middle East cannot possibly be successful. It’s obvious there will be an inevitable conflict between our support for the moderate Arabs- which antagonizes the Islamic fundamentalists of this region- and our special treatment for Israel. It is clear that the powerful financial interests of this country want to use our military force to protect their commercial and oil interests in this region, while there will always remain powerful U.S. political support for the State of Israel. The two sides never will be reconciled by our attempt to balance our support by giving help to both sides. This is exactly opposite of being neutral and friends with both sides. The one reason why this confrontation is going to continue is that 75% of known oil reserves are now owned by Muslims around the world.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:10
    * Our current foreign policy does nothing more than stir the flames of hatred of both sides, clearly evident as we witness the daily fighting between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Growing influence of the radical Islamic fundamentalists will allow them one day to overthrow the secular moderate puppet regimes supported by our government.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:11
    * As the world becomes less stable due to currency, trade and other economic reasons, this region will become even more volatile. We should expect higher oil prices. Hatred toward America will continue to escalate, and United States security will continue to be diminished due to the threat of terrorist attacks. All the anti-ballistic missiles in the world will not be able to protect us against attacks such as the Cole suffered or from the nuclear and biological weapons that can be brought into this country in a suitcase.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:12
    * The greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy. Our policy has continued to permit our own military technology, developed by our taxpayers, to get into the hands of our so-called allies as well as our potential enemies like China.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:13
    * The turmoil in the Middle East is now spilling over into Indonesia, a country made up of 17,000 islands and very vulnerable to political instability, especially since its currency and financial crisis of a few years ago. Indonesia is the world’s fourth largest nation, with the largest Muslim population of any country. Hatred toward the West, and especially America, due to the Middle East policy, has led to Christian persecution in Indonesia. The embassy is now closed, and American ambassador Robert Gelbard has been recalled after his life was threatened.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 95:14
    * Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. The notion that since we are the only superpower left we have an obligation to tell everybody else how to live should come an end. Our failure in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failure yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. But no, we instead continue to expand our intervention by further involving ourselves in yet another sovereign nation. This time it’s Columbia. By sending more weapons into the region we continue to stir up this 30-year civil conflict. And just recently this conflict has spilled over into Venezuela, a major force in South America due to its oil reserves. The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, angered by U.S. actions, recently warned that “any ship or boat which enters the Gulf of Venezuela, of whatever nationality it may be, will be expelled.” Our intervention in many of these regions, and especially in South America, has been done in the name of the drug war. But the truth is it’s serving the interests of the companies who own the oil rights in this region, as well as those who produce the weapons that get sent into these regions.






2000 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act

!DATE:
4 December 2000


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act secure in the belief that were James Madison on the floor today, he would share my opposition to this bill. Congress has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer funds to promote the life and thought of any individual. Congressional actions exceeding the limitations on congressional power contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution undermine the very principles of limited government to which James Madison devoted his life. In fact, few have been as eloquent in pointing out how liberty is threatened when Congress exceeds its enumerated powers:


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 96:2
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.—Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 (Madison, 1865, I, page 546)


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 96:3
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the goals of promoting public awareness and appreciation of, the life and thought of James Madison. In fact, through my work with various educational organizations, I have probably done as much as any member to promote the thought of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers. James Madison’s writings provide an excellent guide to the principles underlying the true nature of the American government. In addition, Madison’s writings address many issues of concern to friends of limited government today, such as the need for each branch of government to respect the Separation of Powers, the threat posed to individual liberty by an interventionist foreign policy, and the differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 96:4
However, the continuing growth of the federal government and Congress’ refusal to abide by its constitutional limits suggest that the people most in need of familiarization with the thought of James Madison are those who would support this bill.


!CITE:
2000 Ron Paul 96:5
Mr. Speaker, S. 3137 exceeds the constitutional limits on Congressional power, and thus violates the principles of limited government upon which our constitutional system was based. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pay appropriate tribute to James Madison by rejecting this unconstitutional bill.

2000 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
December 4, 2000

!TITLE:
ECONOMIC UPDATE


------------

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H 11939]



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:1
    * Mr. Speaker, more and more people now are talking about an oncoming recession. I tend to agree. I think we are moving into a recession, and for good reasons. But already the question that comes up so often among politicians is, who will get blamed? Will the current President be blamed for the recession or will the next President be blamed? Will the current Congress be blamed for the recession or the next Congress?



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:2
    * I do not believe either should be blamed. I think we should deal with the real cause of the business cycle, and that is the Federal Reserve system. The FederalReserve system causes and brings about a boom period in a cycle, but it also brings about the bust. Because the bust, the correction, is inevitable consequence of the boom caused by unduly inflating the money supply.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:3
    * Soon we will hear from many, we have already heard some from the financial circles as well as from politicians, to lower interest rates. This will keep the economy from turning down. It will prevent the recession from coming. And if we do have a recession, it is always said, what you do is you lower the interest rates. But dwelling on the interest rates and not talking about what it takes to lower interest rates I think is a serious mistake.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:4
    * The only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is by inflating the money supply, increasing the money supply, which is the cause of our problems. So if the cause of our problem is the inflation, increasing the money supply which causes a boom, we can hardly solve our problems by further inflating. And then, too, there is a period of time in the business cycle where inflating the money supply or lowering interest rates do not get the response that many people hope for.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:5
    * Take, for instance, what is happening in Japan today. There is no response whatsoever. They take interest rates down below one percent, and they cannot generate economic activity to really get them out of their slump.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:6
    * The other irony of all this is that when we have an economic boom, another reason given for raising interest rates to slow up the economy is to stop the inflation. This is fallacious thinking because the inflation comes from the money supply. The idea that economic growth and prosperity and productivity causes inflation, that is the price type of inflation, is wrong. If we have good productivity, prices go down, they do not go up. So the whole notion that we have to slow up the economy in order to prevent inflation is absolutely incorrect.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:7
    * The problem I see is that Congress for too long has conceded too much of their authority over control of the monetary system to the Federal Reserve system, which acts in secrecy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:8
    * It is something that is directly stated in the Constitution that the Congress shall have the responsibility over the money supply, not a Federal Reserve system. Quite frankly, the Federal Reserve system is not even authorized by the Constitution.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:9
    * Now, if in the midst of a recession the Federal Reserve decides that they want to lower interest rates but the dollar is also dropping and we lower interest rates, we cause the dollar to go down and price inflation will occur because of that. So it is not quite so simple as saying, well, let us just tell the Fed what to do, lower the interest rates and it will solve our problems.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:10
    * We have the problem of the international debt. We, as Americans, now owe more than any other country in the world. We owe $1.7 trillion. Our current account deficit is over $400 billion a month. We borrow well over $100 billion a day to support the international debt.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:11
    * The reason we should be concerned about this more so than we are is the fact that, when we are in a recession, revenues go crashing down. The inflation that occurred over these past 10 years, which was artificially created, giant revenues from capital gains from this artificially high stock market. Well that is all being reversed now, so revenues are going to go down now, and we will have to deal with this in the next Congress.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:12
    * Unfortunately, there are some who are concerned about this who say there is going to be gridlock and the two sides will not get together and the Government is now divided, the House and the Senate and the Presidency is undecided and therefore there will be gridlock. Quite frankly, I do not think that will happen. I sort of would hope that we would have some gridlock.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:13
    * What I think is going to happen is that once the recession sets in and there is a need for additional spending and there will be no longer a concern at all about the deficit; and that is when the Congress will spend, the Federal Reserve will inflate. And it may temporarily help, but in the long-run it does not do the trick. It is not the way we gain economic prosperity out of a printing press. We just cannot allow a Federal Reserve to believe it creates capital by creating credit out of thin air.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:14
    * We will soon be hearing a lot about interest rates. There will be a loud clamor from all quarters for the Fed to lower interest rates. It will be argued that it is necessary in order to help stop the stock market slide/crash and also to stimulate a sagging economy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:15
    * What we must remember though, is that every time someone pressures the Fed to lower interest rates, they are saying to the Fed that the money supply must be inflated. The only tool the Fed has for lowering interest rates is to increase the supply of money. They are arguing the case for further systematic and deliberate debasement of the US dollar. Those who chant for lower interest rates are literally attacking the dollar.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:16
    * And yet, depending on many variables, a deliberate attempt by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates may instead lead to higher interest rates and precipitate a period of accelerating price inflation. Instead of boosting the stock market, this effort can do the opposite by producing conditions that will lower the stock market and do nothing to avert the economic slump that more people are now worried about.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:17
    * Congress should be prepared for some surprises in the not-to-distance future. A slumping economy or definite recession will obviously lower revenues. This will reverse the illusion of the grand surpluses that everyone has been anxious to spend. Instead of expenditures being held under control, expect them to rise rapidly.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:18
    * Many are starting to talk now about a legislative stalemate with no clear majority in the House or Senate and the Presidency being uncertain. This concern about a stalemate is overblown. Not that the problem isn’t serious, but I am certain that under the conditions that we are about to experience, the Congress and the President will be all too willing to deal with the deteriorating conditions with increased spending and with a concerted bi-partisan effort to pressure the Federal Reserve to further inflate the currency in pursuing the fiction that the Federal Reserve can prevent a “hard landing” by merely increasing the money supply in an effort to dictate short-term Fed funds rates.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:19
    * Although this will not be the impasse that many anticipate, the actual capitulation by both parties to deal with the oncoming economic slowdown will actually be more harmful than gridlock because Congress will undoubtedly do more harm than good to the economy.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:20
    * For decades now the Federal Reserve has followed a policy of “fine-tuning” the economy and with the relative success of the recent boom cycle, it has been deceived into believing its ability is more than it actually is. But in this effort to fine-tune the economy the Federal Reserve, since the middle of 1999 until May of this year, has systematically raised the Fed’s fund rates from 4.75% to 6.5%.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:21
    * The explanation was that economic growth, when not controlled, leads to price inflation and therefore the economy had to be “cooled.” A healthy free market economy should never have to be cooled, it should only be encouraged.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:22
    * Ironically it’s argued that the deliberate raising the cost of borrowing money for everyone is that this will hold prices in check. Yet consumers and businesses suffer from this additional cost - pushing all prices upward. But even more ironic is the claim that they now care about “inflation” after a decade of massive monetary inflation-the real culprit.-The Federal Reserve meanwhile ignores the fact that the money supply is key to monetary policy, not admitting the damage has already been done.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:23
    * Signs of economic slowdown are now all around with the seriously slumping stock market being the most visible and eliciting the most concern. As the slowdown spreads and accelerates the politicians will be anxious to advise the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. Politicians from both sides of the aisle will become deeply and especially concerned when the evidence is clear that the revenues are plummeting and the “surplus” is disappearing. Since this will challenge the ability of the politician to continue the spending spree many will become deeply and vocally concerned.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:24
    * The big debate already started in the financial and political circles is when, how much, and how quickly the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates. Indeed all will clamor to lower rates to revive the economy again. With the signs of rising prices in many sectors, especially energy, and in spite of the weak economy we can expect the Federal Reserve chairman to issue precautionary statements. He will reiterate that he must watch out for the resurgence of (price) inflation. In spite of his statements about concerns for inflation, if the stock market slumps and the economic slowdown is significant enough, we can be certain of one thing, the money supply will continue to grow rapidly in an attempt to keep interest rates low. But Mr. Greenspan will never admit that inflating is exactly what he’s been generously doing for the past 13 years.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:25
    * A short time after Chairman Greenspan took over the reigns of the Federal Reserve the stock market crash of 1987 prompted him to alleviate concerns with a heavy dose of monetary inflation. Once again, in the slump of 1991 and 1992, he again re-ignited the financial bubble by more monetary inflation. There was no hesitation on Mr. Greenspan’s part to inflate as necessary to alleviate the conditions brought about by the Mexican financial crisis, the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble crisis, and with the Long-Term Capital Management crisis. Just one year ago the non-existent Y2K crisis prompted huge, unprecedented monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve. All these efforts kept interest rates below the market rate and contributed to the financial bubble that is now starting to deflate. But, there is no doubt that this monetary inflation did maintain an economy that seemed like it would never quit growing. Housing markets thrived, the stock market and bond market thrived, and in turn, the great profits made in these areas, especially gains made by stock market transactions, produced profits that inflated greatly the revenues that flowed into the Treasury. The serious problem that we now face, a collapsing stock market and a rapidly weakening economy, was caused by inflating the money supply along with artificially low interest rates. More inflation and continuing the policy of artificially low interest rates can’t possibly be the solution to the dilemma we face.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:26
    * We should never blame economic growth as the culprit. Instead artificial growth, mal-investment, overcapacity, speculation, and excessive debt that comes from systematic monetary inflation should be blamed, since these are all a result of Federal Reserve Board policy. Let there be no doubt political and financial leaders will demand lower interest rates in order to alleviate the conditions that are developing. But just because a boom can come from generous Fed credit, it doesn’t mean the bubble economy can be maintained or re-inflated by easy credit once a correction sets in.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:27
    * Besides, Alan Greenspan knows full well that the scenario we are now experiencing can be made worse by lowering interest rates. Under the conditions we are facing it’s very likely the dollar will weaken and deliberately lowering interest rates will accelerate this trend. Price inflation, which the Fed claims it is so concerned about, will not necessarily go away even with a weak economy. And the one thing we will come to realize that even the best of all central bankers, Alan Greenspan, will not be able to determine interest rates at all times of the business cycle. Inflation premiums, confidence, the value of the dollar, and political conditions all can affect interest rates and these are out of the control of the Federal Reserve Board.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:28
    * Congress definitely should be concerned about these matters. Budgetary planning will get more difficult as the revenues spiral downward and spending does the opposite. Interest on the national debt will continue and will rise as interest rates rise. The weak dollar, lower stock markets and inflation can affect every fixed income citizen, especially the Social Security beneficiaries. We can expect the World Trade Organization=s managed trade war will actually get much worse under these conditions. Military conflict is not out of the question under the precarious conditions that are developing. Oil supplies are obviously not secure, as we have already seen the run up of prices to dangerously high levels.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:29
    * The question is what should one expect the Federal Reserve Board to eventually do? We can expect it to continue to inflate as they have always chosen with every crisis. There’s no evidence that Alan Greenspan would choose to do anything else regardless of his expression of concern about inflation and the value of the dollar. Greenspan still believes he can control the pain and produce a weakened economy that will not get out of control. But there’s no way that he can guarantee that the United States might not slip into a prolonged lethargy, similar to what Japan is now experiencing. We can be certain that Congress will accommodate with whatever seems to be necessary by bailing out a weakened financial sector.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:30
    * But all this will be done at the expense of the dollar. This is a dangerous process and makes our entire economic and financial system vulnerable.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:31
    * We must someday recognize that neither Congress nor the Fed is supposed to “run” the economy. Yet we still live with the belief that the Administration, our Presidents, our Congress and the Federal Reserve should run the economy. This is a dangerous concepts and always leads to the painful corrections to so-called the good times for which everyone is anxious to take credit.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:32
    * Congress does have responsibility for maintaining a sound dollar and a free market and not much else. Unfortunately this responsibility that is clearly stated in the Constitution is ignored.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:33
    * A major financial crisis is possible since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, held in central banks as if it were gold itself. The current account deficit for the United States continues to deteriorate, warning us of danger ahead. Our foreign debt of $1.7 trillion continues to grow rapidly and it will eventually have to be paid.



      !CITE:
      2000 Ron Paul 97:34
    * Action by the Congress and the Federal Reserve will most likely make the correction that is now starting much worse. Also, under conditions such as these, personal liberty is always vulnerable to the advocates of big government. It is well known that during the times of military wars personal liberties are in endangered. Social wars such as the war on drugs are notorious for undermining the principles of liberty. So too, under economic conditions that are difficult to understand and deal with, personal liberty comes under attack. This should concern us all.

Volume 2001 — The Book of Ron Paul



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL

(Extensions of Remarks - January 03, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Wednesday, January 3, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security Administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:2
    * Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem as it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:3
    * One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:4
    * Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to the Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an uniform identifier, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft — yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:5
    * This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:6
    * In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:7
    * Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:8
    * Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:9
    * Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:10
    * Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:11
    * Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:12
    * Second, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:13
    * Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposal, which allow medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:14
    * The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with chains of the Constitution.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:15
    * Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, the Clinton Administration’s Medical Privacy proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:16
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 1:17
      END



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TAX CUT ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Wednesday, January 31, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:2
    * I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of, if not the, top priority of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but under the United States Constitution, they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:3
    * One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful Representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:4
    * Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:5
    * Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-funded vouchers.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:6
    * There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, “who should control the education dollar — politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?” Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 2:7
      END



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001)

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Wednesday, January 31, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:2
    * The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty”. Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the
      means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:3
    * Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:4
    * Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:5
    * Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:6
    * The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:7
    * The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:8
    * Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:9
    * Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:10
    * The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:11
    * Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:12
    * By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 3:13
      END




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Teacher Tax Cut Act

!DATE:
31 January 2001
HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001)

---


HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 31, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 4:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Cut Act. This bill provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit, thus raising every teacher’s take-home pay without increasing federal spending. Passage of this bill is a major first step toward treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals teachers are underappreciated and underpaid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 4:2
    * Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance to education distract us from our important work of removing government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 4:3
    * Since America’s teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed, the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes. Simply by raising teacher’s take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit we can accomplish a number of important things. First, we show a true commitment to education. We also let America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages highly-qualified professionals to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 4:4
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask my colleagues to put aside partisan bickering and unite around the idea of helping educators by supporting the Teacher Tax Cut Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 4:5
      END




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
India Disaster Relief

!DATE:
31 January 2001

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I too want to express my deep sympathy and sorrow for those people in India who are suffering. It was truly a devastating natural disaster and certainly the concern of all Americans goes out to all these people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:2
I do have some concerns about how we respond so often to disasters like this because we believe that we can solve all our problems by just going to the taxpayers. I know that this does not seem like the appropriate time to raise the question, but there was a time in our history when we did not assume that it was a constitutional approach to tax poor people in America to help people in other parts of the world. We have always resorted to charities and volunteer approaches, and I still believe that is proper. I do not think there is evidence to show that aid to governments is necessarily the most efficient manner of helping other people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:3
There is also the moral question. We talk about what we are giving today, and it is substantial amounts, and we are substantially increasing it. It could be $10 million. It could be $100 million. But nobody talks about could it cost something. Well, there is a cost to it and it might hurt some innocent people in this country; the people who we do not know about. Somebody might not be able to build a house or get medical care. There may be somebody who will lose a job. There may be an increase in inflation. But we will never see those victims, so they are not represented. I think that if we were more determined to follow the rule of law and do this only in a voluntary manner we would not always place a burden on some innocent people in this country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:4
It was ironic that today, although there was talk earlier about sending some goods and surpluses, that actually the ambassador today sadly said he was not interested in any surpluses; he just wanted the dollars to come over there. And there may be a good reason for this, for efficiency sake or whatever. But in a way, I think if we have some surplus in food or something, we should be able to provide that.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:5
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to express my sympathy for victims of the recent earthquake in the State of Gujarat, India and, at the same time, my concern for American taxpayers who, once again, will see their constitution ignored and their pockets raided by their representatives in Washington — it is, of course, easy to express sympathy with other people’s money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:6
Without so much as a hearing in the International Relations committee, this bill comes to the floor and, while laudably expressing deep sympathy for victims of this terrible natural disaster in India, regrettably expresses support for (a) the World Bank; (b) “substantially” increasing the amount of U.S. taxpayerfunded, disaster assistance; and (c) future economic assistance to rebuild the state of Gujarat, India.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:7
Setting aside for the moment that nowhere in Article I, Sec. 8 (the enumerated powers clause) of the Federal Constitution can authority be found to take money from U.S. taxpayers for this purpose, additional problems result from passage of this resolution as well as those actions certain to follow as a consequence of the bill’s passage.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:8
First, the notion of taxing the fruits of financially struggling Americans with no constitutional authority only to send it to foreign governments is reprehensible. One of the problems with such aid is that it ultimately ends up in the hands of foreign bureaucrats who merely use it to advance their own foreign government agendas thus making it less likely to get to those most deserving. One need only compare the success of private charities in this country with those government relief efforts to clearly see government’s profound and inherently inept record.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:9
Secondly, forced “contributions” erode any satisfaction that comes from being a charitable individual. Without the personal choice of giving or not giving to charitable relief efforts, the decision to be charitable and the moral reward of so doing is completely eroded by the forcebased government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:10
Lastly, as a result of such actions as these, participation dwindles worldwide for the most efficient means of dealing with such catastrophes, that is, private disaster insurance. When disaster costs are socialized, greater catastrophic results are encouraged as more people ignore the costs of living in riskier areas. At the same time, these same actors ignore the cost savings and other benefits of living in safer areas. Governments acting to socialize these costs actually stimulates the eventual death and destruction of more people and their property. (This, of course, is a lesson that the United States should learn to apply domestically, as well.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 5:11
While I truly do extend my heartfelt sympathy to those victims of the recent natural disaster in India, my duty remains to protect the U.S. taxpayer and uphold the constitutional limits of our Federal Government. For this reason and each of those detailed above, I must oppose this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools

!DATE:
6 February 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 28 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the sprit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:2
The success of Catholic schools has been remarkable. Catholic schools operating in the inner-city have been able to provide an excellent education to students written off by the educational establishment as “unteachable.” Contrary to the claims of its critics, Catholic schools do not turn away large numbers of children in order to limit their enrollment to the “best and the brightest.” In fact, a few years ago the Archdiocese of New York offered to enroll all students who had been expelled from New York’s public schools! Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368) which would help more parents afford to send their children to Catholic, or other religious schools, by providing them with a $3,000 tax credit for K–12 education expenses.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:3
While I join with the sponsors of this legislation in praising Catholic schools, I am disturbed by the language explicitly endorsing the goals of the United States Catholic Conference. The Catholic Conference is an organization devoted to spreading and advancing Catholicism. While the Conference may advance other social goods through its work, those purposes are secondary to its primary function of advancing the Catholic faith. This is especially true in the case of Catholic schools which were founded and are operated with the explicit purpose of intergrating Catholic doctrine into K–12 education.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favors among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic, the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools where singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to preform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:7
Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 6:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join the sponsors of H. Res. 28 in their admiration for the work of Catholic schools. However, I also have reservations about the language singling out the religious goals of one faith for praise.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 07, 2001

!TITLE:
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
(House of Representatives - February 07, 2001)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:1
The beginning of the 21st Century lends itself to a reassessment of our history and gives us an opportunity to redirect our country’s future course if deemed prudent.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:2
The main question before the new Congress and the Administration is: Are we to have gridlock or cooperation? Today we refer to cooperation as bipartisanship . Some argue that bipartisanship is absolutely necessary for the American democracy to survive. The media never mention a concern for the survival of the Republic. But there are those who argue that left-wing interventionism should give no ground to right-wing interventionism-that too much is at stake.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:3
The media are demanding the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress immediately yield to those insisting on higher taxes and more federal government intervention for the sake of national unity , because our government is neatly split between two concise philosophic views. But if one looks closely, one is more likely to find only a variation of a single system of authoritarianism, in contrast to the rarely mentioned constitutional, non-authoritarian approach to government.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:4
The big debate between the two factions in Washington boils down to nothing more than a contest over power and political cronyism, rather than any deep philosophic differences.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:5
The feared gridlock anticipated for the 107th Congress will differ little from the other legislative battles in recent previous congresses. Yes, there will be heated arguments regarding the size of budgets, local vs. federal control, and private vs. government solutions. But a serious debate over the precise role for government is unlikely to occur. I do not expect any serious challenge to the 20th Century consensus of both major parties-that the federal government has a significant responsibility to deal with education, health care, retirement programs, or managing the distribution of the welfare state benefits. Both parties are in general agreement on monetary management, environmental protection, safety and risks both natural and man-made. Both participate in telling others around the world how they must adopt a democratic process similar to ours, as we police our worldwide financial interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:6
We can expect most of the media-directed propaganda to be designed to speed up and broaden the role of the federal government in our lives and the economy. Unfortunately, the token opposition will not present a principled challenge to big government, only an argument that we must move more slowly and make an effort to allow greater local decision-making. Without presenting a specific philosophic alternative to authoritarian intervention from the left, the opposition concedes that the principle of government involvement per se is proper, practical, and constitutional.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:7
The cliche Third Way has been used to define the so-called compromise between the conventional wisdom of the conservative and liberal firebrands. This nice-sounding compromise refers not only to the noisy rhetoric we hear in the US Congress but also in Britain, Germany, and other nations as well. The question, though, remains: Is there really anything new being offered? The demand for bipartisanship is nothing more than a continuation of the Third-Way movement of the last several decades.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:8
The effort always is to soften the image of the authoritarians who see a need to run the economy and regulate people’s lives, while pretending not to give up any of the advantages of the free market or the supposed benefits that come from a compassionate-welfare or a socialist government. It’s nothing more than political have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too deception. Many insecure and wanting citizens cling to the notion that they can be taken care of through government benevolence without sacrificing the free market and personal liberty. Those who anxiously await next month’s government check prefer not to deal with the question of how goods and services are produced and under what political circumstances they are most efficiently provided. Sadly, whether personal freedom is sacrificed in the process is a serious concern for only a small number of Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:9
The Third Way , a bipartisan compromise that sounds less confrontational and circumvents the issue of individual liberty, free markets, and production is an alluring, but dangerous, alternative. The harsh reality is that it is difficult to sell the principles of liberty to those who are dependent on government programs. And this includes both the poor beneficiaries as well as the self-serving wealthy elites who know how to benefit from government policies. The authoritarian demagogues are always anxious to play on the needs of people made dependent by a defective political system of government intervention while perpetuating their own power. Anything that can help the people to avoid facing the reality of the shortcomings of the welfare/warfare state is welcomed. Thus our system is destined to perpetuate itself until the immutable laws of economics bring it to a halt at the expense of liberty and prosperity.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:10
Third Way compromise, or bipartisan cooperation, can never reconcile the differences between those who produce and those who live off others. It will only make it worse. Theft is theft, and forced redistribution of wealth is just that. The Third Way , though, can deceive and perpetuate an unworkable system when both major factions endorse the principle.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:11
In the last session of the Congress, the Majority Party, with bipartisan agreement, increased the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations by 26% over the previous year, nine times the rate of inflation. The Education Department alone received $44 billion, nearly double Clinton’s first educational budget of 1993. The Labor, HHS, and Education appropriation was $34 billion more than the Republican budget had authorized.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:13
The argument that this bipartisan approach is a reasonable compromise between the total free-market or local-government approach and that of a huge activist centralized government approach may appeal to some, but it is fraught with great danger. Big government clearly wins; limited government and the free market lose. Any talk of a Third Way is nothing more than propaganda for big government. It’s no compromise at all. The principle of federal government control is fully endorsed by both sides, and the argument that the Third Way might slow the growth of big government falls flat. Actually, with bipartisan cooperation, government growth may well accelerate.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:14
How true bipartisanship works in Washington is best illustrated by the way a number of former Members of Congress make a living after leaving office. They find it quite convenient to associate with other former Members of the opposing party and start a lobbying firm. What might have appeared to be contentious differences when in office are easily put aside to lobby their respected party Members. Essentially no philosophic difference of importance exists-it’s only a matter of degree and favors sought, since both parties must be won over. The differences they might have had while they were voting Members of Congress existed only for the purpose of appealing to their different constituencies, not serious differences of opinion as to what the role of government ought to be. This is the reality of bipartisanship. Sadly our system handsomely rewards those who lobby well and in a bipartisan fashion. Congressional service too often is a training ground or a farm system for the ultimate government service: lobbying Congress for the benefit of powerful and wealthy special interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:15
It should be clearly evident, however, that all the campaign finance reforms and lobbying controls conceivable will not help the situation. Limiting the right to petition Congress or restricting people’s right to spend their own money will always fail and is not morally acceptable and misses the point. As long as government has so much to offer, public officials will be tempted to accept the generous offers of support from special interests. Those who can benefit have too much at stake not to be in the business of influencing government. Eliminating the power of government to pass out favors is the only real solution. Short of that, the only other reasonable solution must come by Members’ refusal to be influenced by the pressure that special-interest money can exert. This requires moral restraint by our leaders. Since this has not happened, special-interest favoritism has continued to grow.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:16
The bipartisanship of the last 50 years has allowed our government to gain control over half of the income of most Americans. Being enslaved half the time is hardly a good compromise. But supporters of the political status quo point out that, in spite of the loss of personal freedom, the country continues to thrive in many ways.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:17
But there are some serious questions that we as a people must answer:



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:18
    * Is this prosperity real?
    * Will it be long-lasting?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:19
    * What is the cost in economic terms?
    * Have we sacrificed our liberties for government security?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:20
    * Have we undermined the very system that has allowed productive effort to provide a high standard of living for so many?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:21
    * Has this system in recent years excluded some from the benefits that Wall Street and others have enjoyed?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:22
    * Has it led to needless and dangerous US intervention overseas and created problems that we are not yet fully aware of?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 7:23
    * Is it morally permissible in a country that professes to respect individual liberty to routinely give handouts to the poor, and provide benefits to the privileged and rich by stealing the fruits of labor from hard-working Americans?




!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:24
As we move into the next Congress, some worry that gridlock will make it impossible to get needed legislation passed. This seems highly unlikely. If big government supporters found ways to enlarge the government in the past, the current evenly split Congress will hardly impede this trend and may even accelerate it. With a recession on the horizon, both sides will be more eager than ever to cooperate on expanding federal spending to stimulate the economy , whether the fictitious budget surplus shrinks or not.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:25
In this frantic effort to take care of the economy, promote education, save Social Security, and provide for the medical needs of all Americans, no serious discussion will take place on the political conditions required for a free people to thrive. If not, all efforts to patch the current system together will be at the expense of personal liberty, private property, and sound money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:26
If we are truly taking a more dangerous course, the biggest question is: How long will it be before a major political-economic crisis engulfs our land? That, of course, is not known, and certainly not necessary if we as a people and especially the Congress understand the nature of the crisis and do something to prevent the crisis from undermining our liberties. We should, instead, encourage prosperity by avoiding any international conflict that threatens our safety or wastefully consumes our needed resources.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:27
Congressional leaders have a responsibility to work together for the good of the country. But working together to promote a giant interventionist state dangerous to us all is far different from working together to preserve constitutionally protected liberties.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:28
Many argue that the compromise of bipartisanship is needed to get even a little of what the limited-government advocates want. But this is a fallacious argument. More freedom can never be gained by giving up freedom, no matter the rationale.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:29
If liberals want $46 billion for the Department of Education and conservatives argue for $42 billion, a compromise of $44 billion is a total victory for the advocates of federal government control of public education. “Saving” $2 billion means nothing in the scheme of things, especially since the case for the constitutional position of zero funding was never entertained. When the budget and government controls are expanding each year, a token cut in the proposed increase means nothing, and those who claim it to be a legitimate victory do great harm to the cause of liberty by condoning the process. Instead of it being a Third Way alternative to the two sides arguing over minor details on how to use government force, the three options instead are philosophically the same. A true alternative must be offered if the growth of the state is to be contained. Third-Way bipartisanship is not the answer.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:30
However, if in the future, the constitutionalists argue for zero funding for the Education Department, and the liberals argue to increase it to $50 billion, and finally $25 billion is accepted as the compromise, progress will have been made.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:31
But this is not what is being talked about in DC when an effort is made to find a Third Way . Both sides are talking about expanding government, and neither side questions the legitimacy of the particular program involved. Unless the moral and constitutional debate changes, there can be no hope that the trend toward bigger government with a sustained attack on personal liberty will be reversed. It must become a moral and constitutional issue.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:32
Budgetary tokenism hides the real issue. Even if someone claims to have just saved the taxpayers a couple billion dollars, the deception does great harm in the long run by failure to emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the moral principles of liberty. It instead helps to deceive the people into believing something productive is being done. But it’s really worse than that, because neither party makes an effort to cut the budget. The American people must prepare themselves for ever-more spending and taxes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:33
A different approach is needed if we want to protect the freedoms of all Americans, to perpetuate prosperity, and to avoid a major military confrontation. All three options in reality represent only a variation of the one based on authoritarian and interventionist principles.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:34
Nothing should be taken for granted, neither our liberties nor our material well being. Understanding the nature of a free society and favorably deciding on its merit are required before true reform can be expected. If, however, satisfaction and complacency with the current trend toward bigger and more centralized government remain the dominant view, those who love liberty more than promised security must be prepared for an unpleasant future. And those alternative plans will surely vary from one another. Tragically for some it will contribute to the violence that will surely come when promises of government security are not forthcoming. We can expect further violations of civil liberties by a government determined to maintain order when difficult economic and political conditions develop.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:35
But none of this needs occur if the principles that underpin our Republic, as designed by the Founders, can be resurrected and re-instituted. Current problems that we now confront are government-created and can be much more easily dealt with when government is limited to its proper role of protecting liberty, instead of promoting a welfare-fascist state.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:36
There are reasons to be optimistic that the principles of the Republic, the free market, and respect for private property can be restored. However, there remains good reason as well to be concerned that we must confront the serious political and economic firestorm seen on the horizon before that happens.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:37
My concerns are threefold: the health of the economy, the potential for war, and the coming social discord. If our problems are ignored, they will further undermine the civil liberties of all Americans. The next decade will be a great challenge to all Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:38
The Economy


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:39
The booming economy of the last six years has come to an end. The only question remaining is how bad the slump will be. Although many economists expressed surprise at the sudden and serious shift in sentiment, others have been warning of its inevitability. Boom times built on central-bank credit creation always end in recession or depression. But central planners, being extremely optimistic, hope that this time it will be different; that a new era has arrived.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:40
For several years, we’ve heard the endless nostrum of a technology and productivity-driven new paradigm that would make the excesses of the 1990s permanent and real. Arguments that productivity increases made the grand prosperity of the last six years possible were accepted as conventional wisdom, although sound free-market analysts warned otherwise. We are now witnessing an economic downturn that will, in all likelihood, be quite serious. If our economic planners pursue the wrong course, they will surely make it much worse and prolong the recovery.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:41
Although computer technology has been quite beneficial to the economy, in some ways these benefits have been misleading by hiding the ill effects of central-bank manipulation of interest rates and by causing many to believe that the usual business-cycle correction could be averted. Instead, delaying a correction that is destined to come only contributes to greater distortions in the economy, thus requiring an even greater adjustment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:42
It seems obvious that we are dealing with a financial bubble now deflating. Certainly, most observers recognize that the NASDAQ was grossly overpriced. The question remains, though, as to what is needed for the entire economy to reach equilibrium and allow sound growth to resume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:43
Western leaders for most of the 20th Century have come to accept a type of central planning they believe is not burdened by the shortcomings of true socialist-type central planning. Instead of outright government ownership of the means of production, the economy was to be fine-tuned by fixing interest rates (FED Funds Rates), subsidizing credit (Government Sponsored Enterprises), stimulating sluggish segments of the economy (Farming and the Weapons Industry), aiding the sick (Medicaid and Medicare), federally managing education (Department of Education), and many other welfare schemes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:44
The majority of Americans have not yet accepted the harsh reality that this less-threatening, friendlier type of economic planning is minimally more efficient than that of the socialist planners with their five-year economic plans. We must face the fact that the business cycle, with its recurring recessions, wage controls, wealth transfers, and social discord are still with us and will get worse unless there is a fundamental change in economic and monetary policy. Regardless of the type, central economic planning is a dangerous notion.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:45
In an economic downturn, a large majority of our political leaders believe that the ill effects of recession can be greatly minimized by monetary and fiscal policy. Although cutting taxes is always beneficial, spending one’s way out of a recession is no panacea. Even if some help is gained by cutting taxes or temporary relief given by an increase in government spending, they distract from the real cause of the downturn: previously pursued faulty monetary policy. The consequences of interest-rate manipulation in a recession-along with tax and spending changes-are unpredictable and do not always produce the same results each time they’re used. This is why interest rates of less than 1% and massive spending programs have not revitalized Japan’s economy or her stock market. We may well be witnessing the beginning of a major worldwide economic downturn, making even more unpredictable the consequence of conventional western-style central bank tinkering.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:46
There’s good reason to believe the Congress and the American people ought to be concerned and start preparing for a slump that could play havoc with our federal budget and the value of the American dollar. Certainly the Congress has a profound responsibility in this area. If we ignore the problems, or continue to endorse the economic myths of past generations, our prosperity will be threatened. But our liberties could be lost, as well, if expanding the government’s role in the economy is pursued as the only solution to the crisis.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:47
It’s important to understand how we got ourselves into this mess. The blind faith that wealth and capital can be created by the central bank’s creating money and credit out of thin air, using government debt as its collateral, along with fixing short-term interest rates, is a myth that must one day be dispelled. All the hopes of productivity increases in a dreamed-about new-era economy cannot repeal eternal economic laws.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:48
The big shift in sentiment of the past several months has come with a loss of confidence in the status of the new paradigm. If we’re not careful, the likely weakening of the US dollar could lead to a loss of confidence in America and all her institutions. US political and economic power has propped up the world economy for years. Trust in the dollar has given us license to borrow and spend way beyond our means. But just because world conditions have allowed us greater leverage to borrow and inflate the currency than otherwise might have been permitted, the economic limitations of such a policy still exist. This trust, however, did allow for a greater financial bubble to develop and dislocations to last longer, compared to similar excesses in less powerful nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:49
There is one remnant of the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard that has aided US dominance over the past 30 years. Gold was once the reserve all central banks held to back up their currencies. After World War II, the world central banks were satisfied to hold dollars, still considered to be as good as gold since internationally the dollar could still be exchanged for gold at $35 an ounce. When the system broke down in 1971, and we defaulted on our promises to pay in gold, chaos broke out. By default the dollar maintained its status as the reserve currency of the world.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:50
This is true, even to this day. The dollar still represents approximately 77% of all world central-bank reserves. This means that the United States has license to steal. We print the money and spend it overseas, while world trust continues because of our dominant economic and military power. This results in a current account and trade deficit so large that almost all economists agree that it cannot last. The longer and more extensive the distortions in the international market, the greater will be the crisis when the market dictates a correction. And that’s what we’re starting to see.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:51
When the recession hits full force, even the extraordinary power and influence of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, along with all the other central banks of the world, won’t be able to stop the powerful natural economic forces that demand equilibrium. Liquidation of unreasonable debt and the elimination of the over-capacity built into the system and a return to trustworthy money and trustworthy government will be necessary. Quite an undertaking!



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:52
Instead of looking at the real cost and actual reasons for the recent good years, politicians and many Americans have been all too eager to accept the new-found wealth as permanent and deserved, as part of a grand new era. Even with a national debt that continued to grow, all the talk in DC was about how to handle the magnificent budget surpluses.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:53
Since 1998, when it was announced that we had a budgetary surplus to deal with, the national debt has nevertheless grown by more than $230 billion dollars, albeit at a rate less than in the early 1990s, but certainly a sum that should not be ignored. But the really big borrowing has been what the US as a whole has borrowed from foreigners to pay for the huge deficit we have in our current account. We are now by far the largest foreign debtor in the world and in all of history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:54
This convenient arrangement has allowed us to live beyond our means and, according to long-understood economic laws, must end. A declining dollar confirms that our ability to painlessly borrow huge sums will no longer be cheap or wise.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:55
During the past 30 years in the post-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sentiment has permitted us to inflate our money supply and get others to accept the dollar as if it were as good as gold. This convenient arrangement has discouraged savings, which are now at an historic low. Savings in a capitalist economy are crucial for furnishing capital and establishing market interest rates. With negative savings and with the FED fixing rates by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, we have abandoned a necessary part of free-market capitalism, without which a smooth and growing economy is sustainable.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:56
No one should be surprised when recessions hit or bewildered as to their cause or danger. The greater surprise should be the endurance of an economy fine-tuned by a manipulative central bank and a compulsively interventionist Congress. But the full payment for all past economic sins may now be required. Let’s hope we can keep the pain and suffering to a minimum.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:57
The most recent new era of the 1990s appeared to be an answer to all politicians’ dreams: a good economy, low unemployment, minimal price inflation, a skyrocketing stock market, with capital gains tax revenues flooding the Treasury, thus providing money to accommodate every special-interest demand. But it was too good to be true. It was based on an inflated currency and massive corporate, personal, and government borrowing. A recession was inevitable to pay for the extravagance that many knew was an inherent part of the new era, understanding that abundance without a commensurate amount of work was not achievable.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:58
The mantra now is for the FED to quickly lower short-term interest rates to stimulate the economy and alleviate a liquidity crisis. This policy may stimulate a boom and may help in a mild downturn, but it doesn’t always work in a bad recession. It actually could do great harm since it could weaken the dollar, which in turn would allow market forces instead to push long-term interest rates higher. Deliberately lowering interest rates isn’t even necessary for the dollar to drop, since our policy has led to a current-account deficit of a magnitude that demands the dollar eventually readjust and weaken.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:59
A slumping stock market will also cause the dollar to decline and interest rates to rise. Federal Reserve Board central planning through interest-rate control is not a panacea. It is instead the culprit that produces the business cycle. Government and FED officials have been reassuring the public that no structural problems exists, citing no inflation and a gold price that reassures the world that the dollar is indeed still king.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:60
The FED can create excess credit, but it can’t control where it goes as it circulates throughout the economy; nor can it dictate value either. Claiming that a subdued government-rigged CPI and PPI proves that no inflation exists is pure nonsense. It is well established that, under certain circumstances, new credit inflation can find its way into the stock or real estate market, as it did in the 1920s, while consumer prices remain relatively stable. This does not negate the distortion inherit in a system charged with artificially low interest rates. Instead it allows the distortion to last longer and become more serious, leading to a bigger correction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:61
If gold prices reflected the true extent of the inflated dollar, confidence in the dollar specifically and in paper more generally would be undermined. It is a high priority of the FED and all central banks of the world for this not to happen. Revealing to the public the fraud associated with all paper money would cause loss of credibility of all central banks. This knowledge would jeopardize the central banks’ ability to perform the role of lender of last resort and to finance/monetize government debt. It is for this reason that the price of gold in their eyes must be held in check.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:62
From 1945 to 1971, the United States literally dumped nearly 500 million ounces of gold at $35 an ounce in an effort to do the same thing by continuing the policy of printing money at will, with the hopes that there would be no consequences to the value of the dollar. That all ended in 1971 when the markets overwhelmed the world central banks.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:63
A similar effort continues today, with central banks selling and loaning gold to keep the price in check. It’s working and does convey false confidence, but it can’t last. Most Americans are wise to the government’s statistics regarding prices and the “no-inflation” rhetoric. Everyone is aware that the prices of oil, gasoline, natural gas, medical care, repairs, houses, and entertainment have all been rapidly rising. The artificially low gold price has aided the government’s charade, but it has also allowed a bigger bubble to develop. This policy cannot continue. Economic law dictates a correction that most Americans will find distasteful and painful. Duration and severity of the liquidation phase of the business cycle can be limited by proper responses, but it cannot be avoided and could be made worse if the wrong course is chosen.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:64
Recent deterioration of the junk-bond market indicates how serious the situation is. Junk bonds are now paying 9% to 10% more than short-term government securities. The quality of business loans is suffering, while more and more corporate bonds are qualifying for junk status. The FED tries to reassure us by attempting to stimulate the economy with low short-term FED fund rates at the same time interest rates for businesses and consumers are rising. There comes a time when FED policy is ineffective, much to everyone’s chagrin.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:65
Micromanaging an economy effectively for a long period of time, even with the power a central bank wields, is an impossible task. The good times are ephemeral and eventually must be paid for by contraction and renewed real savings.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:66
There is much more to inflation than rising prices. Inflation is defined as the increase in the supply of money and credit. Obsessively sticking to the rising prices definition conveniently ignores placing the blame on the responsible party – the Federal Reserve. The last thing central banks or the politicians, who need a backup for all their spending mischief, want is for the government to lose its power to create money out of thin air, which serves political and privileged financial interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:67
When the people are forced to think only about rising prices, government-doctored price indexes can dampen concerns for inflation. Blame then can be laid at the doorstep of corporate profiteers, price gougers, labor unions, oil sheikhs, or greedy doctors. But it is never placed at the feet of highly paid athletes or entertainers. It would be economically incorrect to do so, but it’s political correctness that doesn’t allow some groups to be vilified.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:68
Much else related to artificially low interest rates goes unnoticed. An overpriced stock market, overcapacity in certain industries, excesses in real-estate markets, artificially high bond prices, general mal-investments, excessive debt, and speculation all result from the generous and artificial credit the Federal Reserve pumps into the financial system. These distortions are every bit, if not more, harmful than rising prices. As the economy soars from the stimulus effect of low interest rates, growth and distortions compound themselves. In a slump the reverse is true, and the pain and suffering is magnified as the adjustment back to reality occurs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:69
The extra credit in the 1990s has found its way especially into the housing market like never before. GSEs, in particular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have gobbled up huge sums to finance a booming housing market. GSE securities enjoy implicit government guarantees, which have allowed for a generous discount on most housing loans. They have also been the vehicles used by consumers to refinance and borrow against their home equity to use these funds for other purposes, such as investing in the stock market. This has further undermined savings by using the equity that builds with price inflation that homeowners enjoy when money is debased. In addition, the Federal Reserve now buys and holds GSE securities as collateral in their monetary operations. These securities are then literally used as collateral for printing Federal Reserve notes; this is a dangerous precedent.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:70
If monetary inflation merely raised prices, and all prices and labor costs moved up at the same rate, and it did not cause dis-equilibrium in the market, it would be of little consequence. But inflation is far more than rising prices. Creating money out of thin air is morally equivalent to counterfeiting. It’s fraud and theft, because it steals purchasing power from the savers and those on fixed incomes. That in itself should compel all nations to prohibit it, as did the authors of our Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:71
Inflation is socially disruptive in that the management of fiat money-as all today’s currencies are- causes great hardships. Unemployment is a direct consequence of the constantly recurring recessions. Persistent rising costs impoverish many as the standard of living of unfortunate groups erodes. Because the pain and suffering that comes from monetary debasement is never evenly distributed, certain segments of society can actually benefit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:72
In the 1990s, Wall Streeters thrived, while some low-income, non-welfare, non-homeowners suffered with rising costs for fuel, rent, repairs, and medical care. Generally one should expect the middle class to suffer and to literally be wiped out in a severe inflation. When this happens, as it did in many countries throughout the 20th Century, social and political conflicts become paramount when finger pointing becomes commonplace by those who suffer looking for scapegoats. Almost always the hostility is inaccurately directed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:73
There is a greater threat from the monetary mischief than just the economic harm it does. The threat to liberty resulting when economic strife hits and finger-pointing increases should concern us most. We should never be complacent about monetary policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:74
We must reassess the responsibility Congress has in maintaining a sound monetary system. In the 19th Century, the constitutionality of a central bank was questioned and challenged. Not until 1913 were the advocates of a strong federalist system able to foist a powerful central bank on us, while destroying the gold standard. This banking system, which now serves as the financial arm of Congress, has chosen to pursue massive welfare spending and a foreign policy that has caused us to be at war for much of the 20th Century.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:75
Without the central bank creating money out of thin air, our welfare state and worldwide imperialism would have been impossible to finance. Attempts at economic fine-tuning by monetary authorities would have been impossible without a powerful central bank. Propping up the stock market as it falters would be impossible as well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:76
But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it’s all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:77
Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:78
Ultimately the solution will require a recommitment to the principles of liberty, including a belief in sound money- when money once again will be something of value rather than pieces of paper or mere blips from a Federal Reserve computer. In spite of the grand technological revolution, we are still having trouble with a few simple basic tasks – counting votes or keeping the lights on or understanding the sinister nature of paper money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:79
Potential for War


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:80
Foreign military interventionism, a policy the US has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities. Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars like the Persian Gulf War are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out-of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused nation. But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflicts can be prevented.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:81
National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda. If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militarist policy. It’s not a coincidence that US territory and US citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks. Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its cause is a dangerous temptation.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:82
Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives. It’s never the political and industrial leaders who promote the policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:83
Many reasons given for our willingness to police the world sound reasonable: We need to protect our oil. We need to stop cocaine production in Colombia. We need to bring peace to the Middle East. We need to punish our adversaries. We must respond because we are the sole superpower and it’s our responsibility to maintain world order. It’s our moral obligation to settle disputes. We must follow up on our dollar diplomacy after sending foreign aid throughout the world. In the old days it was: we need to stop the spread of Communism. The excuses are endless!



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:84
But it’s rarely mentioned that the lobbyists and proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts for building infrastructures in whatever far corner of the earth we send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it’s important for them that the United States maintains its empire. Not infrequently, ethnic groups will influence foreign policy for reasons other than preserving our security. This type of political pressure can at times be substantial and emotional.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:85
We often try to please too many, and by doing so support both sides of conflicts that have raged for centuries. In the end, our efforts can end up unifying our adversaries while alienating our friends.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:86
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term foreign policy is never mentioned in the Constitution and it was never intended to be monopolized by the president. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an Executive one.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:87
Operating foreign policy by Executive Orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that’s currently being done.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:88
US policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupations in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have been forgotten. Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died, as well, from the bombing and blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess to the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:90
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 UN Rome Treaty, indicating our willingness to establish an International Criminal Court. This gives the UN authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. Even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations. Presidents have, by Executive Order, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:92
For years the US has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF- another arm of one-world government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:93
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the US taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations. Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:94
These programs run by the international institutions are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It’s all a charade, and if left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:95
It’s the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the US Constitution and our national sovereignty. It’s time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:96
Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our military and Hollywood. In December, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen used $295,000 of taxpayer money to host a party in Los Angeles for Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the military in a good light . A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the US government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Now here’s where real separation is needed!



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:97
Our policy should change for several reasons. It’s wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it’s for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended. Controlling world events is never easy. It’s better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances and pursue a policy designed solely to protect US national security interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:98
The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades, we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime. The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:99
It will be difficult to separate any involvement in the Balkans from a major conflict that breaks out in the Middle East. It’s impossible for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides security for Western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:100
Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:101
Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the War on Drugs, protecting US oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for last years’ $1.3 billion emergency funding. Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our presence in Colombia. The US policymakers gave their usual response by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that feel threatened.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:102
Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela they will be expelled . This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive US Coast Guard vessel’s intrusion into Venezuelan territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States. Yet it will cost us plenty. Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it. Recently new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy the coca fields. It’s already been reported that the legal crops in nearby fields have been destroyed as well. This is no way to win friends around the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:103
There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a second look, and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise them and bring our troops home. World War II has been over for 55 years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:104
It’s time we look at Korea and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:105
Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other’s country. Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It’s time for us to let the two of them settle their border dispute.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:106
We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:107
Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances won’t do it. It’s time for Congress and the American people to wake up.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:108
Social Discord


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:109
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special-interest favoritism, all of which contribute to the friction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:110
Thomas Jefferson was worried that future generations might squander the liberties the American Revolution secured. Writing about future generations, Jefferson wondered if; “in the enjoyment of plenty, they would, lose the memory of freedom.” He believed: “Material abundance without character is the path to destruction.”



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:111
The challenge to America today is clearly evident. We lack character, and we also suffer from a loss of respect, understanding, and faith in the liberty that offers so much. The American Republic has been transformed and only a remnant remains. It appears that in the midst of plenty, we have forgotten about freedom.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:112
We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation, and inflation, the correction that’s to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism. If, indeed, the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:113
Conflicts between classes, races, ethnic groups, and even generations are already apparent. This is a consequence of pitting workers and producers against moochers and the special-interest rich. Divvying up half of the GDP through a process of confiscatory taxation invites trouble. It is more easily tolerated when wealth abounds; but when the economy slips, quiescent resentment quickly turns to noisy confrontation. Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:114
But the system of government we have become accustomed to has, for decades, taken over responsibilities that were never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. Although mostly well intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional Republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians. Our presidents are now elected by less than 20% of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:116
Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choice are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:117
Issues like abortion and euthanasia don’t disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such acts, the state is responsible for protecting life, rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for government than we currently have.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:118
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:120
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times reported last year: “The 480,00 men and women now in US prisons on drug charges are 100,000 more than all prisoners in the European Union, where the population is 100 million more than ours.”



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:121
There are ten times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80% of the drug arrests are for non-violent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace. Someday we must wake up and realize the federal drug war is a farce. It has failed and we must change our approach.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:122
As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is miniscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty, and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:123
Mandatory drug sentencing laws have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in the drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws, just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and forfeiture laws two years ago.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:124
The drug laws, I’m sure, were never meant to be discriminatory, yet they are. In Massachusetts, 82.9% of the drug offenders are minorities, but they make up only 9% of the state population. The fact that crack-cocaine users are more likely to land in prison than powder-cocaine users, and with harsher sentences, discriminates against black Americans. A wealthy suburbanite caught using drugs is much less likely to end up in prison than someone from the inner city. This inequity adds to the conflict between races and between the poor and the police. And it’s unnecessary.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:125
There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if a reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we don’t have that to deal with, since drug usage continues to get worse; in addition we have all the problems associated with the drug war.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:126
The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms. Ironically we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous over-usage of Ritalin.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:127
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law-enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:128
Medicinal use of illegal drugs, in particular marijuana, has been prohibited and greater human suffering has resulted. Imprisoning a person who is dying from cancer and Aids for using his own self-cultivated marijuana is absolutely bizarre and cruel.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:129
All addiction — alcohol and illegal drugs — should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior, just for the sake of changing unpopular habits, never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals. When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol (also a drug), or even from the lack of sleep causes injury to another, local law-enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the Justice Department using army tanks to bomb the Davidians because federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:130
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to spend more dollars for foreign military operations in places such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow government to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:131
The sooner we wake up to this seriously flawed approach to fighting drug usage the better.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:132
The notion that the Federal government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts, and bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:133
Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile airbags when they present a danger to a child without federal permission. Riding in a car without a seat belt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets? That would reduce serious injury and save many dollars for the government health system.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:134
Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs, and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:135
Today if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness, and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA- and only after much begging and pleading. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk. The government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in government think that’s what they are supposed to do for the good of the people .


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:136
Free choice is what freedom is all about. And it means freedom to take risks as well. As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the government encroachment into health-care choices has been very detrimental.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:137
There are many areas where the federal government has gotten involved when it shouldn’t have, and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the federal government has improved education or medicine, in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years. Yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates. How bad it will get before we reject the big-government approach is anybody’s guess.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:138
Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever-more intrusive government. The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government. Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the government’s invasion of privacy.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:139
We must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our government to manage a welfare state and to operate foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:140
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the government: the US Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:141
For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:142
Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies may work for a while, eventually they will fail. As wealth is diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with regulation, taxes, and inflation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:143
The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before tempers flair. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:144
Conclusion


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:145
Why should any of us be concerned about the future, especially if prosperity is all around us? America has been truly blessed. We are involved in no major military conflict. We remain one of the freest nations on earth. Current economic conditions have allowed for low unemployment and a strong dollar, with cheap purchases from overseas, further helping to keep price inflation in check. Violent crimes have been reduced, and civil disorder, such as we saw in the 1960s, is absent.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:146
But we have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been undermined, but only for a limited period of time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:147
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money, and self-reliance have been eroded, and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits, and voluntary contracts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:148
Concern for the future is real, because it’s unreasonable to believe that the prosperity and relative tranquility can be maintained with the current system. Not being concerned means that one must be content with the status quo and that current conditions can be maintained with no negative consequences. That, I maintain, is a dream.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:149
There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music, and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:150
In some ways I am pleasantly surprised by the concern expressed about America’s future, considering the prosperity we enjoy. Many Americans sense a serious problem in general, without specifically understanding the economic and political ramifications.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:151
Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than is generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed aren’t even counted. Lower-middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living many others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:152
Most Americans still believe everyone has a right to a free education, but they don’t connect this concept to the evidence: that getting a good education is difficult; that drugs are rampant in public schools; that safety in public schools is a serious problem; and that the cost is amazing for a system of free education if one wants a real education.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:153
The quality of medical care is slipping, and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make America feel more confident about the future of health care.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:154
Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:155
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:156
America continues to be a great country, and we remain prosperous. We have a system of freedom and opportunities that motivate many in the world to risk their lives trying to get here.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:157
The question remains: can we afford to be lax in the defense of liberty at this juncture in our history? I don’t think so.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:158
The problems are not complex, and even the big ones can be easily handled if we pursue the right course. Prosperity and peace can be continued, but not with the current system that permeates Washington. To blindly hope our freedom will remain intact, without any renewed effort in its defense, or to expect that the good times will automatically continue, places our political system in great danger.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 7:159
Basic morality, free markets, sound money, living within the rule of law, and adhering to the fundamental precepts that made the American Republic great are what we need. And it’s worth the effort.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Five Days To Revise And Extend Remarks

!DATE:
7 February 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the special order by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE) today.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Adjournment

!DATE:
7 February 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o’clock and 25 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 8, 2001, at 10 a.m.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 08, 2001

!TITLE:
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
(House of Representatives - February 08, 2001)

---




!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:1
   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:2
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this special order today to express my concerns for our foreign policy of interventionism that we have essentially followed throughout the 20th century.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:3
   Mr. Speaker, foreign military interventionism, a policy the U.S. has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:4
   Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars, like the Persian Gulf War, are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused Nation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:5
   But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflict can be prevented. National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:6
   If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militaristic policy. It is not a coincidence that U.S. territory and U.S. citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:7
   Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its causes is a dangerous temptation. Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:8
   It is never the political and industrial leaders who promote the policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:9
   Many reasons given for our willingness to police the world sound reasonable: We need to protect our oil; we need to stop cocaine production in Colombia; we need to bring peace in the Middle East; we need to punish our adversaries; we must respond because we are the sole superpower, and it is our responsibility to maintain world order; it is our moral obligation to settle disputes; we must follow up on our dollar diplomacy after sending foreign aid throughout the world. In the old days, it was, we need to stop the spread of communism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:10
   The excuses are endless. But it is rarely mentioned that the lobbyists and the proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts for building infrastructures in whatever far corners of the Earth we send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it is important for them that the United States maintains its empire.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:11
   Not infrequently, ethnic groups will influence foreign policy for reasons other than preserving our security. This type of political pressure can at times be substantial and emotional. We often try to please too many, and by doing so support both sides of conflicts that have raged for centuries. In the end, our effort can end up unifying our adversaries while alienating our friends.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:12
   Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term “foreign policy” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one. Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:13
   U.S. policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupation in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have just simply been forgotten.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:14
   Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died as well from the bombings and the blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess in the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:15
   For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:16
   U.S. troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear U.N. insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court-martial.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:17
   The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 U.N.-Rome treaty indicating our willingness to establish an international criminal court. This gives the U.N. authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. But even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:18
   Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are fought with the court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:19
   The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the foreign sales corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:20
   For years the U.S. has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF, another arm of one-world government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:21
   The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the U.S. taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:22
   Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the international criminal court, always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man. These programs, run by the international institutions, are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It is all a charade. If left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:23
   It is the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the U.S. Constitution and our national sovereignty. It is time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:24
   Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our military and Hollywood. In December, our Secretary of Defense used $295,000 of taxpayers’ money to host a party in Los Angeles for Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the military in a good light.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:25
   A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the U.S. Government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Here is where real separation is needed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:26
   Our policy should change for several reasons. It is wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it is for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:27
   Controlling world events is never easy. It is better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances, and pursue a policy designed solely to protect U.S. national security interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:28
   The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:29
   The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:30
   It will be difficult to separate any involvement in the Balkans from a major conflict that breaks out in the Middle East. It is impossible for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides security for western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:31
   Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us. Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the war on drugs, protecting U.S. oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for the last year’s $1.3 billion emergency funding.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:32
   Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our presence in Colombia. The U.S. policymakers gave their usual response by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that feel threatened.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:33
   Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela, they will be expelled. This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive U.S. Coast Guard vessel intrusion into Venezuela’s territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States, yet it will cost us plenty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:34
   Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions, it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:35
   Recently, new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy the coca fields. It has already been reported that the legal crops in the nearby fields have been destroyed, as well. This is no way to win friends around the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:36
   There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a second look and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise them and bring our troops home.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:37
   World War II has been over for 55 years. It is time we look at Korea and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea. Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other’s country. Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It is time for us to let the two of them settle their border dispute.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:38
   We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now, we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:39
   Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances will not do it. It is time for Congress and the American people to wake up.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:40
   The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special interest favoritism, all of which contributes to the friction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:41
   Thomas Jefferson was worried that future generations might one day squander the liberties the American Revolution secured. Writing about future generations, Jefferson wondered if, in the enjoyment of plenty, they would lose the memory of freedom. He believed material abundance without character is the path to destruction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:42
   The challenge to America today is clearly evident. We lack character. And we also suffer from the loss of respect, understanding, and faith in the liberty that offers so much. The American Republic has been transformed and only a remnant remains. It appears that, in the midst of plenty, we have forgotten about freedom.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:43
   We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation and inflation, the correction that is to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:44
   If indeed the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:45
   Conflicts between classes, races and ethnic groups and even generations are already apparent. This is a consequence of pitting workers and producers against the moochers and the special-interest rich. Divvying up half of the GDP through a process of confiscatory taxation invites trouble. It is more easily tolerated when wealth abounds. But when the economy slips, quiescent resentment quickly turns to noisey confrontation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:46
   Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:47
   Although mostly well-intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:48
   Our presidents now are elected by less than 20 percent of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:49
   The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:50
   The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:51
   Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:52
   Issues like abortion and euthanasia do not disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such act, the State is responsible for protecting life rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for Government than we currently have.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:53
   We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:54
   The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:55
   It is clear that even if it were a legitimate function for Government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through Government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else the Government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:56
   Anthony Lewis of The New York Times reported last year, “The 480,000 men and women now in U.S. prisons on


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:57
   drug charges are 100,000 more than all prisoners in the European Union, where the population is 100 million more than ours.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:58
   There are 10 times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80 percent of the drug arrests are for nonviolent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:59
   Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce, it has failed, and we must change our approach.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:60
   As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is minuscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:61
   Mandatory drug sentencing have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in this drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and for forfeiture laws 2 years ago. The drug laws, I am sure, were never meant to be discriminatory. Yet they are.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:62
   In Massachusetts, 82.9 percent of the drug offenders are minorities, but they make up only 9 percent of the State population. The fact that crack-cocaine users are more likely to land in prison than powder-cocaine users and with harsher sentences discriminates against black Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:63
   A wealthy suburbanite caught using drugs is much less likely to end up in prison than someone from the inner city. This inequity adds to the conflict between races and between the poor and the police. And it is so unnecessary.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:64
   There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we do not have that to deal with since drug usage continues to get worse.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:65
   In addition, we have all the problems associated with the drug war. The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:66
   Ironically, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while Government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous overusage of Ritalin. This makes no sense whatsoever.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:67
   Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:68
   Medicinal use of illegal drugs, in particular, marijuana, has been prohibited and greater human suffering has resulted. Imprisoning a person who is dying from cancer and AIDS for using his own self-cultivated marijuana is absolutely bizarre and cruel.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:69
   All addiction, alcohol and illegal drugs, should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior just for the sake of changing unpopular habits never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:70
   When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol, also a drug, or even from the lack of sleep, causes injury to another, local law enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the Justice Department using Army tanks to bomb the Davidians because Federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:71
   An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to use more dollars for foreign military operations in places, such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow governments to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:72
   The sooner we wake up to this seriously flawed approach to fighting drug usage, the better.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:73
   The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:74
   American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts and bureaucratic


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:75
   busybodies what they can or cannot do.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:76
   Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile air bags when they present a danger to a child without Federal permission.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:77
   Riding in a car without a seatbelt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets that would reduce serious injuries and save many dollars for the government health system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:78
   Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the Government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only the politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:79
   Today, if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA and only after much begging. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:80
   The Government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in Government think that is what they are supposed to do for the good of the people. Free choice is what freedom is all about and it means freedom to take risks, as well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:81
   As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the Government encroachment into the health care choices has been very detrimental.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:82
   There are many areas where the Federal Government has been involved when they should not have and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the Federal Government has improved education or medicine in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years, yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:83
   How bad will it get before we reject the big government approach is anybody’s guess.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:84
   Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever more intrusive government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:85
   The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:86
   Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the Government’s invasion of privacy. But we must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our Government to manage a welfare state and to operate a foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:87
   If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the Government, the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:88
   For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First, it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:89
   Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies may work for awhile, eventually they will fail. As wealth is diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with regulation, taxes and inflation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:90
   The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before tempers flare. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:91
   Why should any of us be concerned about the future, especially if prosperity is all around us? America has been truly blessed. We are involved in no major military conflicts. We remain one of the freest nations on Earth. Current economic conditions have allowed for low unemployment and a strong dollar, with cheap purchases from overseas further helping to keep price inflation in check. Violent crimes have been reduced; and civil disorder, such as we saw in the 1960s, is absent.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:92
   We have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been undermined; but only for a limited period of time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:93
   Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money and self-reliance have been eroded; and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits and voluntary contracts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:94
   Concern for the future is real, because it is unreasonable to believe that the prosperity and relative tranquility can be maintained with the current system. Not being concerned means that one must be content with the status quo and that current conditions can be maintained with no negative consequences. That, I maintain, is a dream.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:95
   There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:96
   In some ways I am pleasantly surprised by the concern expressed about America’s future, considering the prosperity we enjoy. Many Americans sense a serious problem in general, without specifically understanding the economic and political ramifications.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:97
   Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed are not even counted. Lower middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:98
   Most Americans still believe everyone has a right to a free education, but they don’t connect this concept to the evidence: That getting a good education is difficult; that drugs are rampant in public schools; that safety in public schools is a serious problem; and that the cost is amazing for a system of free education if one wants a real education.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:99
   The quality of medical care is slipping and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make Americans feel more confident about the future of health care. Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:100
   I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:101
   America continues to be a great country, and we remain prosperous. We
have a system of freedom and opportunities that motivate many in the world to risk their lives trying to get here.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:102
   The question remains, though, can we afford to be lax in the defense of liberty at this juncture in our history? I do not think so.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:103
   The problems are not complex, and even the big ones can be easily handled if we pursue the right course. Prosperity and peace can be continued, but not with the current system that permeates Washington. To blindly hope our freedom will remain intact without any renewed effort in its defense or to expect that the good times will automatically continue places our political system in great danger.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 10:104
   Basic morality, free markets, sound money, and living within the rule of law, while clinging to the fundamental precepts that made the American Republic great, are what we need. And it is worth the effort. END


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL

(Extensions of Remarks - February 13, 2001)

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Tuesday, February 13, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article “Know Your Customer” by Christoper Whalen, which recently appeared in Barron’s, to my colleagues. This article examines the horrors faced by victims of America’s fastest-growing crime: identity theft. As the article points out, millions of Americans have suffered deep financial losses and the destruction of their credit history because of identity theft. Victims of identity theft often discover that the process of reestablishing one’s good reputation resembles something out of a Kafka novel. identity fraud also effects numerous businesses which provide credit to unscrupulous individuals based on a stolen credit history. Just last year, American businesses and consumers lost 25 billion dollars to identity thieves!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:2
    * Mr. Whalen properly identifies the Social Security number and its use as a universal identifier as the root cause of identity theft. Unfortunately, thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, or even go fishing without showing their Social Security number. Following the lead of the federal government, many private industries now use the Social Security number as an identifier. After all, if a bank needs to see their customers’ Social Security number to comply with IRS regulations, why shouldn’t the bank use the Social Security number as a general customer identifier?



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:3
    * In order to end this government-facilitated identity theft, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (H.R. 220). This act requires the Social Security Administration to issue new, randomly-generated Social Security numbers to all citizens within five years of enactment. The Social Security Administration would be legally forbidden to give out the new number for any purpose not related to Social Security administration. Numbers issued prior to implementation of this legislation would have no legal value as an identifier — although the Social Security Administration could continue to use the old numbers to cross reference an individual’s records to ensure smooth administration of the Social Security system.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:4
    * This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:5
    * I urge my colleagues to read the attached article and act to repeal government policies which facilitate identity theft by cosponsoring the Identity Theft Prevention Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:6
      [From Barrons, January 15, 2001]
      KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER

      LENDERS INCREASINGLY ARE PAYING FOR IGNORING THAT MAXIM
      (By Christopher Whalen)



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:7
      High-yield paper is out of favor with Wall Street as an economic slowdown raises concerns about credit quality. One in five issuers have paper trading at distressed levels. Consumer lenders are under particular pressure due to worries about a looming recession. But investors in companies that make consumer loans should worry about more than a slowing economy.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:8
      Consumer lenders write off an average of 6% of loans each year. That’s a bad enough record, but investors ought to realize that the industry’s own sloppy screening practices contribute significantly to the losses.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:9
      Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in America and costs companies $25 billion last year. Much of the cause lies with one factor completely avoidable by lenders; the use of Social Security numbers as identifiers.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:10
      One of my in-laws — I will call her Jean to protect what remains of her privacy — was the victim of identity theft in 1999. Jean is a teacher who lives in Westchester County, New York, and drives a Volvo. She and her husband have perfect credit. About a year ago, Jean called in a panic, saying that her bank had frozen the family checking account because someone had a judgment against her. Being the banker in the family, I agreed to act for Jean. What I discovered during more than a year of investigation was a personal outrage and an investor’s nightmare.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:11
      Every investor who buys securities back by consumer loans or the equity of companies that are significantly involved in the consumer-loan business should think twice before investing in such paper.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:12
      One of the world’s biggest nonbank financial firms — wee’ll call it Megacorp — provided credit to a criminal who used Jean’s Social


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:13
      After the perpetrator defaulted on the loan payments, Megacorp obtained a judgment against the alias. Using the Social Security number, Megacorp’s agents found Jean’s family checking account at a big New York commercial bank. Even though the name and address were clearly wrong, Jean’s bank enforced a garnishment order from Megacorp and froze $5,000 in the account.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:14
      I contacted the police and Secret Service, who were familiar with the Bronx address used to commit the fraud against Megacorp. I then called and wrote to the lawyer for Megacorp, a lowbrow law firm and collection agency that handles hundreds of such claims per month. I explained that Jean was the victim of identity theft and that Megacorp wrongly garnished her bank account.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:15
      Lawyers for Megacorp refused to back off and responded with a torrent of verbal abuse, accusing Jean of committing other misdemeanors. The law firm used a similar tone in telephone calls to Jean’s mother. We responded by filing with the court a strongly worded show cause motion, as well as a motion seeking sanctions. Megacorp’s attorneys subsequently began to back-pedal and eventually withdrew the garnishment. The cost of this exercise was roughly $1,500 in legal fees, plus the time to draft documents and letters, and two visits to the Bronx Civil Court, a venue too near Yankee Stadium for comfort.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:16
      I contacted Megacorp and the three major credit reporting agencies, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. I asked how a criminal using a dubious Bronx mailing address and a false, oddly spelled name could obtain credit using the Social Security number and non-existent credit history of a middle-class woman who lives in Westchester. On examining Jean’s credit reports, I discovered that it was Megacorp, after extending credit to the Bronx delinquent, that reported the false name and new address to Experian linked to Jean’s Social Security number. The alias and new address were automatically added to Jean’s credit history without any verification whatsoever.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:17
      By making the false report to Experian, Megacorp apparently created a window of opportunity, enabling the Bronx lawbreaker to open accounts with Home Depot, Exxon, and AT&T Wireless, eventually involving over $10,000 in bad debt. I contacted these vendors to correct their misimpression that Jean was their customer.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:18
      Significantly, neither Megacorp nor Experian nor any of the other credit reporting agencies attempted to contact Jean to verify the significant change in name and address reported by Megacorp.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:19
      I confronted representatives of Experian and the other credit agencies about the false information place in Jean’s credit report, yet they disclaimed any responsibility for the validity of the information. Representatives of Experian say they aren’t responsible for the accuracy of the data provided by financial institutions and that they don’t even review the information. “The banks do that,” they asserted.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:20
      Experian’s representatives were courteous, however, and amended the reports after we provided copies of the relevant court documents.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:21
      Megacorp continued to send Jean demand letters from various collection agencies for months after my first telephone and written responses. I kept on asking: How could anyone of even minimal competence look at the credit reports from Experian and other agencies and approve credit to the fictions Bronx resident?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:22
      Answer: The credit report tied to Jean’s Social Security number wasn’t reviewed. One Megacorp representative told me unofficially that the Social Security number was simply checked for defaults, judgments, etc., and when it came up clean — the number, not the name and not the application — the credit was approved.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:23
      The Secret Service agent in White Plains, New York, who took the report on Jean’s experience confirmed that he sees dozens of such cases every month in which Social Security numbers are used to commit fraud. The perpetrators are rarely caught.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:24
      Lenders and the providers of credit information have created a system that is inadequate to its purpose if a valid Social Security number and a couple of other pieces of information are sufficient to defeat most credit controls. Lenders may complain that it would be too costly to manually screen applicants and verify identities, but how much more costly would it be if they had to bear the costs they now push off onto Jean and other victims of fraud?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:25
      Financial author Martin Mayer rightly says that there are no economies of scale in banking, but the loan approval operation of too many consumer lenders suggests there are dis-economies of scale. It seems that the bigger a bank gets, the sloppier it gets. To maximize revenue growth and control costs, consumer lenders use statistical screening tools and computer models to make credit decisions. In other words, they use the law of large numbers and simply roll the dice. If a criminal finds a Social Security number with a clean history, he’s off to the races.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:26
      Eliminating the use of Social Security numbers as identifiers by law seems like a logical solution. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has introduced legislation to prohibit the commercial use of Social Security numbers as identifiers, but Congress needs to more thoroughly examine the issue.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:27
      Even if Social Security did not exist, the financial system would invent another system of universal identification. Congress should place the blame where it belongs, on the lenders and credit bureaus. It should require credit bureaus to obtain written affirmation from consumers prior to accepting a change in the name, address or other details on a credit history. Lenders should be held liable for reporting false information to credit bureaus, especially in cases where false reports lead to acts of financial fraud.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:28
      Additionally, Congress needs to afford consumers greater protection from asset seizures based solely on Social Security numbers.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:29
      We are, after all, innocent until proven guilty. A bank or Megacorp that treats us otherwise has committed a gross injustice. And it — not we — should pay.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 11:30
      END



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Res 34

!DATE:
13 February 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I reluctantly rise in opposition to H. Res. 34. This resolution is unclear and, hence, leaves the ability for much mischief. As the resolution’s introductory sentence makes clear, this legislation is considered for “other purposes,” which is to say, unspecified purposes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:2
Certainly Israel has been a longstanding friend to the United States, sharing many of our interests including peace, open trade, and free movement across international borders. It is equally clear that the people of Israel and the Middle East have long been torn by violence and, as such, share our desire to seek peace. We should, in fact, call for an end to the violence and hope all parties will see why this must be achieved. We are also right to congratulate Mr. Sharon, as is customary to be done with the victor of any election. We have all fought those battles ourselves and rightly understand the commitment needed to succeed in that arena.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:3
What then is the problem with this resolution? In fact, there are two problems and they are closely related. The substantive problem here is summed up in that last clause which “restates the commitment of the United States to a secure peace for Israel.” Certainly we wish peace upon all the people of the world, and in this sense, we are committed to peace. However, we must ask what other sorts of commitments are implied here. The vagary of this resolution leaves open the possibility that those who support it are endorsing unwise and constitutionally-suspect financial and military commitments abroad. Moreover, peace will not best be secured for Israel by the further injection of the United States into regional affairs; rather, it will come when Israel has the unfettered sovereignty necessary to protect its own security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:4
As written, this resolution can be interpreted as an endorsement of unconstitutional acts of aggression upon Israel’s sovereignty. In this I cannot engage. Thus, it is the less-than-clear nature of the resolution upon which we are voting that makes it necessary for me to object.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:5
This brings me to the second problem, the procedural laxity involved here. This resolution was submitted by a number of distinguished members and referred to the Committee on International Relations. The highly-regarded chairman of that committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation and a number of other committee members are among its original cosponsors. Nonetheless, a number of other members of the committee and I were not included in the process. Perhaps, had this bill traveled through the commonly established processes of this institution we would have had the ability to clarify the “commitments” and “other purposes” to which this bill refers. In short, had the committee held a hearing and mark-up, the vagaries could’ve been removed in the markup process. In such an instance it would be likely that we could achieve the kind of unanimous support for these resolutions, for which I often hear personal appeals. In the future, those who are interested in gaining such unanimous support might consider these procedural concerns if they seek unanimity on this floor. In the instant case, however I must vote “no” for the reasons I have here expressed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 12:6
Hopefully these reasons will be considered so that in future instances the opportunity to make clarifications will be offered to those duly-elected members of the committees of this House.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 13, 2001

!TITLE:
The Economy



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Speaker: Many government and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly argued that we have no inflation to fear. Yet those who claim this, define inflation as rising consumer and producer prices. Although inflation frequently leads to price increases we must remember that the free market definition of inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit. Monetary inflation is seductive in that it can cause great harm without significantly affecting government price indices. The excess credit may well go into stock market and real estate speculation with consumer price increases limited to such things as energy, repairs, medical care and other services. One should not conclude, as so many have in the past decade, that we have no inflation to worry about. Imbalances did develop with the 1990’s monetary inflation but were ignored. They are now becoming readily apparent as sharp adjustments take place—such as we have seen in the past year in the NASDAQ.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:2
When one is permitted to use “rising prices” as the definition for inflation it is followed by a nonsensical assumption that a robust economy is the cause for rising prices. Foolish conclusions of this sort lead our economic planners and Federal Reserve officials to attempt to “solve ” the problem of price or labor-cost inflation by precipitating an economic slowdown. Such a deliberate policy is anathema to a free market economy. It’s always hoped that the planned economic slowdown will never do serious harm, but this is never the case. The recession with rising prices still comes. And that’s what we are seeing today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:3
Raising interest rates 6 times in 1999-2000 has had an effect and the central planners are now worried. Falsely, they believe that if only the money spigot is once again turned on, all will be well. That will prove to be a pipe dream.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:4
It is now recognized that indeed the economy has sharply turned downward—which is what was intended. But can the downturn be controlled? Not likely! And “inflation” by even the planner’s own definition is now raising its ugly head. For instance, in the fourth quarter of last year labor costs rose at an annualized rate of 6.6%, the biggest increase in 9 years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:5
And what’s happening to employment conditions? They’re deteriorating rapidly. Economist Ed Hyman, reported that 270,000 people lost their jobs in January, a 678% increase over a year ago. A growing number of economists are now doubtful that productivity growth will save us from the correction that many free market economists predicted would come as an inevitable consequence of the interest rate distortions that Federal Reserve policy causes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:6
Instead of blind faith in the Federal Reserve to run the economy, we should become more aware of Congress’s responsibility for maintaining a sound dollar and removing the monopoly power of our central bank to create money and credit out of thin air and fix short term interest rates—which is the real cause of all our economic downturns.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:7
Between 1995 and today, the Greenspan Fed increased the money supply as measured by (MZM) by $1.9 trillion or a 65% increase. There is no reason to look any further for the explanation of why the economy is slipping with labor costs rising, energy costs soaring, and medical and education costs skyrocketing, while the stock market is disintegrating. Until we look at the unconstitutional monopoly power the Federal Reserve has over money and credit we can expect a continuation of our problems. Demanding lower interest rates is merely insisting the Federal Reserve deliberately create even more credit, which caused the problem in the first place. We cannot restore soundness to the dollar by debasing the dollar—which is what lowering interest rates is all about—printing more money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:8
When control is lost in a sharp downturn, dealing with it by massive monetary inflation, may well cause something worse than the stagflation that we experienced in the 1970s; an inflationary recession or depression could result.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 13:9
This need not happen and won’t if we demand that our dollar not be casually and deliberately debased by our unaccountable Federal Reserve.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 14, 2001

!TITLE:
The WAGE Act
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 14, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Workers Access to Accountable Governance in Employment (WAGE) Act. This bill takes a first step toward restoring the rights of freedom of association and equal protection under the law to millions of American workers who are currently denied these rights by federal law.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:2
    * The WAGE Act simply gives workers the same rights to hold decertification elections as they have to hold certification elections. Currently, while workers in this country are given the right to organize and have union certification elections each year, provided that 30 percent or more of the workforce wish to have them, workers are not given an equal right to have a decertification election, even if the same requirements are met.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:3
    * As a result of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) created contract-bar rule, if 30 percent or more of a bargaining unit wants to hold an election to decertify a union as their representative, they are prohibited from doing so unless the contract is in at least its third year.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:4
    * In other words, it does not matter whether or not workers want to continue to have the union as their representative. It does not matter whether or not the union represents the will of the workers. It does not even matter if the majority of the current workforce voted for union representation. They must accept that representation.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:5
    * Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. The lowest criminal in this country has the right to change



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:6
      [Page: E189] GPO’s PDF
      their representative in the courtroom. Yet millions of hardworking, law-abiding citizens cannot change their representation in the workplace.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:7
    * As a result of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 and the action taken by the federally-funded NLRB, workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees for unwanted representation as a condition of employment. Federal law may even force workers to accept union representation against the will of the majority of workers.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 14:8
    * Talk about taxation without representation! Mr. Speaker, the WAGE Act takes a step toward returning a freedom to workers that they never should have lost in the first place: the right to choose their own representative. I urge my colleagues to support the nonpartisan, pro-worker WAGE Act.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
February 27, 2001

!TITLE:
Blame Congress for HMOs
BLAME CONGRESS FOR HMO’S — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - February 27, 2001)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 15:1
[Page: E226] GPO’s PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 27, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:2
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article, “Blame Congress for HMOs” by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, to my colleagues. Ms. Brase demolishes the myth that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), whose power to deny Americans the health care of their choice has been the subject of much concern, are the result of an unregulated free-market. Instead, Ms. Brase reveals how HMOs were fostered on the American people by the federal government for the express purpose of rationing care.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:3
    * The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs. However, it was Congress which had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to costs when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to control health care cost stripped away, and because politicians where unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs, preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients, and mandating that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sounds like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, Big Government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:4
    * Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called “patients’ rights” legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:5
    * As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called “patients’ rights” legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient’s Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:6
    * The only true solution to the health care problems is to truly allow the private sector to work by restoring control of the health care dollar to the individual through Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits. In the Medicare program, seniors should not be herded into HMOs but instead should receive increased ability to use Medicare MSAs, which give them control over their health care dollars. Of course, the limits on private contracting in the Medicare program should be lifted immediately.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:7
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read this article and take its lesson to heart. Government-managed care, whether of the socialist or corporatist variety, is doomed to failure. Congress must instead restore a true free-market in health care if we are serious about creating conditions under which individuals can receive quality care free of unnecessary interference from third-parties and central planners.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:8
      [From the Ideas On Liberty, Feb. 2001]
      BLAME CONGRESS FOR HMOS
      (By Twila Brase)



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:9
      Only 27 years ago, congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed that American patients should gently but firmly be forced into managed care. That patients do not know this fact is evidenced by public outrage directed at health maintenance organizations (HMOs) instead of Congress.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:10
      Although members of Congress have managed to keep the public in the dark by joining in the clamor against HMOs, legislative history puts the responsibility and blame squarely in their collective lap.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:11
      The proliferation of managed-care organizations (MCOs) in general, and HMOs in particular, resulted from the 1965 enactment of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. Literally overnight, on July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:12
      Offering “free care” led to predictable results. Because Congress placed no restrictions on benefits and removed all sense of cost-consciousness, health-care use and medical costs skyrocketed. Congressional testimony reveals that between 1969 and 1971, physician fees increased 7 percent and hospital charges jumped 13 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose only 5.3 percent. The nation’s health-care bill, which was only $39 billion in 1965, increased to $75 billion in 1971. Patients had found the fount of unlimited care, and doctors and hospitals had discovered a pot of gold.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:13
      This stampede to the doctor’s office, through the U.S. Treasury, sent Congress into a panic. It had unlocked the health-care appetite of millions, and the results were disastrous. While fiscal prudence demanded a hasty retreat, Congress opted instead for deception.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:14
      Limited by a noninterference promise attached to Medicare law — enacted in response to concerns that government health care would permit rationing — Congress and federal officials had to be creative. Although Medicare officials could not deny services outright, they could shift financial risk to doctors and hospitals, thereby influencing decision-making at the bedside.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:15
      Beginning in 1971, Congress began to restrict reimbursements. They authorized the economic stabilization program to limit price increases; the Relative Value Resource Based System (RVRBS) to cut physician payments; Diagnostic-Related Groups (DRGs) to limit hospitals payments; and most recently, the Prospective Payment System (PPS) to offer fixed prepayments to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies for anticipated services regardless of costs incurred. In effect, Congress initiated managed care.
      NATIONAL HEALTH-CARE AGENDA ADVANCES



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:16
      Advocates of universal coverage saw this financial crisis as an opportunity to advance


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:17
      Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a longtime advocate of national health care, proceeded to hold three months of extensive hearings in 1971 on what was termed the “Health Care Crisis in America.” Following these hearings, he held a series of hearing “on the whole question of HMO’s.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:18
      Introducing the HMO hearings, Kennedy said, “We need legislation which reorganizes the system to guarantee a sufficient volume of high quality medical care, distributed equitably across the country and available at reasonable cost to every American. It is going to take a drastic overhaul of our entire way of doing business in the health-care field in order to solve the financing and organizational aspects of our health crisis. One aspect of that solution is the creation of comprehensive systems of health-care delivery.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:19
      In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon heralded his desire for the HMO in a speech to Congress: “the Health Maintenance Organization concept is such a central feature of my National Health Strategy.” The administration had already authorized, without specific legislative authority, $26 million for 110 HMO projects. That same year, the U.S. Senate passed a $5.2 billion bill permitting the establishment of HMOs “to improve the nation’s health-care delivery system by encouraging prepaid comprehensive health-care programs.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:20
      But what the House of Representatives refused to concur, it was left to the 93rd Congress to pass the HMO Act in 1973. Just before a voice vote passed the bill in the House,



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:21
      [Page: E227] GPO’s PDF
      U.S. Representative Harley O. Staggers, Sr., of West Virginia said, “I rise in support of the conference report which will stimulate development of health maintenance organizations. ..... I think that this new system will be successful and give us exciting and constructive alternatives to our existing programs of delivering better health services to Americans.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:22
      In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: “I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. ..... This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. ..... I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.” In a roll call vote, only Senator Herman Talmadge voted against the bill.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:23
      On December 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the HMO Act of 1973 into law.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:24
      As patients have since discovered, the HMO — staffed by physicians employed by and beholden to corporations — was not much of a Christmas present or an insurance product. It promises coverage but often denies access. The HMO, like other prepaid MCOs, requires enrollees to pay in advance for a long list of routine and major medical benefits, whether the health-care services are needed, wanted, or ever used. The HMOs are then allowed to manage care — without access to dollars and service — through definitions of medical necessity, restrictive drug formularies, and HMO-approved clinical guidelines. As a result, HMOs can keep millions of dollars from premium-paying patients.
      HMO BARRIERS ELIMINATED



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:25
      Congress’s plan to save its members’ political skins and national agendas relied on employer-sponsored coverage and taxpayer subsidies to HMOs. The planners’ long-range goal was to place Medicare and Medicaid recipients into managed care where HMO managers, instead of Congress, could ration care and the government’s financial liability


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:26
      To accomplish this goal, public officials had to ensure that HMOs developed the size and stability necessary to take on the financial risks of capitated government health-care programs. This required that HMOs capture a significant portion of the private insurance market. Once Medicare and Medicaid recipients began to enroll in HMOs, the organizations would have the flexibility to pool their resources, redistribute private premium dollars, and ration care across their patient populations.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:27
      Using the HMO Act of 1973, Congress eliminated three major barriers to HMO growth, as clarified by U.S. Representative Claude Pepper of Florida: “First, HMO’s are expensive to start; second, restrictive State laws often make the operation of HMO’s illegal; and, third, HMO’s cannot compete effectively in employer health benefit plans with existing private insurance programs. The third factor occurs because HMO premiums are often greater than those for an insurance plan.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:28
      To bring the privately insured into HMOs, Congress forced employers with 25 or more employees to offer HMOs as an option — a law that remained in effect until 1995. Congress then provided a total of $373 million in federal subsidies to fund planning and startup expenses, and to lower the cost of HMO premiums. This allowed HMOs to undercut the premium prices of their insurance competitors and gain significant market share.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:29
      In addition, the federal law pre-empted state laws, that prohibited physicians from receiving payments for not providing care. In other words, payments to physicians by HMOs for certain behavior (fewer admissions to hospitals, rationing care, prescribing cheaper medicines) were now legal.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:30
      The combined strategy of subsidies, federal power, and new legal requirements worked like a charm. Employees searching for the lowest priced comprehensive insurance policy flowed into HMOs, bringing their dollars with them. According to the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), the percentage of working Americans with private insurance enrolled in managed care rose from 29 percent in 1988 to over 50 percent in 1997. In 1999, 181.4 million people were enrolled in managed-care plans.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:31
      Once HMOs were filled with the privately insured, Congress moved to add the publicly subsidized. Medicaid Section 1115 waivers allowed states to herd Medicaid recipients into HMOs, and Medicare+Choice was offered to the elderly. By June 1998, over 53 percent of Medicaid recipients were enrolled in managed-care plans, according to HRSA. In addition, about 15 percent of the 39 million Medicare recipients were in HMOs in 2000.
      HMOS SERVE PUBLIC-HEALTH AGENDA



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:32
      Despite the public outcry against HMOs, federal support for managed care has not waned. In August 1998, HRSA announced the creation of a Center for Managed Care to provide “leadership, coordination, and advancement of managed care systems . . . [and to] develop working relationships with the private managed care industry to assure mutual areas of cooperation.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:33
      The move to managed care has been strongly supported by public-health officials who anticipate that public-private partnerships will provide funding for public-health infrastructure and initiatives, along with access to the medical records of private patients. The fact that health care is now organized in large groups by companies that hold millions of patient records and control literally hundreds of millions of health-care dollars has allowed unprecedented relationships to form between governments and health plans.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:34
      For example, Minnesota’s HMOs, MCOs, and nonprofit insurers are required by law to fund public-health initiatives approved by the Minnesota Department of Health, the state regulator for managed care plans. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield tobacco lawsuit, which brought billions of dollars into state and health-plan coffers, is just one example of the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours initiatives. Yet this hidden tax, which further limits funds available for medical care, remains virtually unknown to enrollees.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:35
      Federal officials, eager to keep HMOs in business, have even been willing to violate federal law. In August 1998, a federal court chided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for renewing HMO contracts that violate their own Medicare regulations.
      THE RUSE OF PATIENT PROTECTION



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:36
      Truth be told, HMOs allowed politicians to promise access to comprehensive health-care services without actually delivering them. Because treatment decisions could not be linked directly to Congress, HMOs provided the perfect cover for its plans to contain costs nationwide through health-care rationing. Now that citizens are angry with managed (rationed) care, the responsible parties in Congress, Senator Kennedy in particular, return with legislation ostensibly to protect patients from the HMOs they instituted.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:37
      At worst, such offers are an obfuscation designed to entrench federal control over health care through the HMOs. At best they are deceptive placation. Congress has no desire to eliminate managed care, and federal regulation of HMOs and other managed-care corporations will not protect patients from rationing. Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its June 12, 2000, Pegram


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:38
      Real patient protection flows from patient control. Only when patients hold health-care dollars in their own hands will they experience the protection and power inherent in purchasing their own insurance policies, making cost-conscious health-care decisions, and inciting cost-reducing competition for the cash.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 15:39
      What could be so bad about that? A lot, it seems. Public officials worry privately that patients with power may not choose managed-care plans, eventually destabilizing the HMOs Congress is so dependent on for cost containment and national health-care initiatives. Witness congressional constraints on individually owned, tax-free medical savings accounts and the reluctance to break up employer-sponsored coverage by providing federal tax breaks to individuals. Unless citizens wise up to Congress’s unabashed but unadvertised support for managed care, it appears unlikely that real patient power will rise readily to the top of its agenda.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 8, 2001

!TITLE:
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
OPPOSING NATIONAL TEACHER CERTIFICATION OR NATIONAL TEACHER TESTING — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - March 08, 2001)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 16:1
[Page: E321] GPO’s PDF


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 16:2
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 8, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:3
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to forbid the use of federal funds to develop or implement a national system of teacher certification or a national teacher test.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:4
      [Page: E322] GPO’s PDF
      My bill also forbids the Department of Education from denying funds to any state or local education agency because that state or local educational agency has refused to adopt a federally-approved method of teacher certification or testing. This legislation in no way interferes with a state’s ability to use federal funds to support their chosen method of teacher certification or testing.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:5
    * Federal control of teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching ceirtificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:6
    * Many educators are voicing opposition to national teacher certification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:7
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America’s teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 16:8
      THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
      Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
      Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
      Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
      Doc Contents



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
March 8, 2001

!TITLE:
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:1
Secretary Powell, thank you for your time and please answer the following questions:



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:3
2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars — both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq — without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the “war decision” is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:4
3. Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:5
4. Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill, and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:6
5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:7
6. If investors of a foreign nation had a stake in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and their country was dependent on oil imports for subsistence, is that country justified in militarily dominating the Gulf and use of U.S. soil for basing operations? My guess is Americans would be furious even if done with our government official’s approval. Yet we expect the Arab world — a world quite different from ours — to accept our presence and domination. Is it not possible for our policy in the region to show more “humility” rather than pursue a policy that incites Islamic fundamentalists against us leading to what they see as acts of self defense and we see as acts of terrorism?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:8
7. How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress?



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 17:9
8. In your earlier remarks before this committee you said that you regard the military as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I am wondering if you, as a former military officer, would comment on the antiquated idea of a military draft and selective service registration. I believe you have spoken against the draft in the past. Do you still hold that a draft is unwarranted? Would you support ending draft registration?


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 13, 2001

!TITLE:
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:1
The golden new Era of the 1990s has been welcomed and praised by many observers. But I’m afraid a different type of new era is arriving-a dangerous one- heralding the end of 30 years of fiat money. If so, it’s a serious matter that deserves close attention by Congress.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:2
There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:3
Efforts to achieve peaceful globalist goals are quickly abandoned when the standard of living drops, unemployment rises, stock markets crash and artificially high wages are challenged by market forces. When tight budgets threaten spending cuts, cries for expanding the welfare state drown out any expression of concern for rising deficits.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:4
The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:5
Great emphasis in the last six years has been placed on so-called productivity increases that gave us the new-era economy. Its defenders proclaimed that a new paradigm had arrived. Though productivity increases have surely helped our economy, many astute observers have challenged the extent to which improvements in productivity have actually given us a distinctly unique new era. A case can be made that the great surge in new technology of the 1920’s far surpassed the current age of fast computers, and we all know what happened in after 1929.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:6
A truly new era may well be upon us-but one quite different than what is generally accepted today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:7
The biggest error in interpreting today’s events is totally ignoring how monetary policy in a fiat system affects the entire economy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:8
Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:9
But today’s economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results- some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less regulated, low cost, and low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:10
But the artificial nature of today’s world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:11
The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:12
One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it’s declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:13
But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:14
Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:15
The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:16
Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:17
There are many countries only too anxious to get back at the United States for our military and economic aggressiveness, and some unknown economic or military event will one day knock us off our pedestal and a dangerous New Era will be upon us, instead of the golden one dreamed about.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:18
For thirty years the world has operated on a pure fiat monetary system and all the ill effects of such a system are now becoming apparent. Current adjustments will be different than all other previous currency adjustments, which were local or regional. This one is worldwide and may well be the biggest economic event in modern history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:19
It’s reasonable to assume a worldwide slump will ensue as a result of the worldwide monetary mischief our authorities have engaged in the past 30 years. Never before has the world gone so long without money having some tangible value attached to it. Trust in politicians and Central Bankers may have been a benefit in the inflationary part of the cycle but this trust will quickly dissipate in the corrected phase. Monetary heroes can quickly become villains as the price is paid for previous excesses and extravagance.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:20
However, hope springs eternal, so no effort will soon be made to restore sound money. A giant worldwide slump will merely prompt massive monetary inflation and deficit financing. The Congress and the American people should anticipate this will happen even though it should not.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:21
Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:22
The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 18:23
When that day comes we will have a true New Era, unlike the fictitious New Era of Greenspan’s dreams and certainly opposite of the dangerous New Era that stares us in the face as the world fiat monetary system falters.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
March 15, 2001

!TITLE:
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 15, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, which uses the Congressional Review Act to repeal the so-called Medical Privacy regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This “one-size-fits-all” approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Certain individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:2
    * The so-called “medical privacy” regulations not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, they actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:3
    * Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:4
    * Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:5
    * In addition to law enforcement, these so-called “privacy protection” regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:6
      [Page: E372] GPO’s PDF
      records without the individual’s consent. For example, medical researchers may access a person’s private



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:7
    * Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:8
    * In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:9
    * The collection and storage of personal medical information “authorized” by these regulations may also revive an effort to establish a “unique health identifier” for all Americans. The same legislation which authorized these privacy rules also authorized the creation of a “unique health care identifier” for every American. However, Congress, in response to a massive public outcry, has included a moratorium on funds for developing such an identifier in HHS budgets for the last three fiscal years.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:10
    * By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a “unique health care identifier” while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Mr. Speaker, Congress must heed the wishes of the American people and repeal these HHS regulations before they go into effect and become a backdoor means of numbering each American and recording their information in a massive health care database.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:11
    * The American public is right to oppose these regulations, for they not only endanger privacy but could even endanger health! As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these regulations. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:12
    * I ask my colleagues to consider what will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant?



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:13
    * Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that questions regarding who should or should not have access to one’s medical privacy are best settled by way of contract between a patient and a provider. However, the government-insurance company complex that governs today’s health care industry has deprived individual patients of control over their health care records, as well as over numerous other aspects of their health care. Rather than put the individual back in charge of his or her medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ privacy regulations give the federal government the authority to decide who will have access to individual medical records. These regulations thus reduce individuals’ ability to protect their own medical privacy.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 19:14
    * These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing this latest threat to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Earthquake Relief For El Salvador

!DATE:
20 March 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I must vote against HCR 41. While I certainly offer my personal sympathy to the victims in El Salvador, and also join in encouraging relief agencies to increase their assistance to these individuals, I cannot support this resolution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 20:2
In the past I have complained that similar bills have come to the House Floor without going through the committee process. In this instance the committees were included and I applaud the Chairman for ensuring we had an opportunity to discuss this issue at committee. I am also grateful to the committee staff who worked with me in helping facilitate that discussion.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 20:3
At the subcommittee I introduced an amendment for discussion purposes only. That amendment would have deleted the specific references to governmental assistance contained in this bill. Had that amendment been adopted I could have supported this resolution. Simply, I believe it is not proper for us to force taxpayers in this country to provide this kind of assistance by having the IRS collect these funds. Next, I believe that the Red Cross, for example, would not only be a more sympathetic entity for the purposes of collecting funds used for relief, but also that it would be a more efficient distributor of such funds than are the plethora of government agencies referenced in this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
March 20, 2001

!TITLE:
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:1
    Joint Statement from Congressman Ron Paul and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform: “Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:2
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the need to protect consumers from intrusive regulations which interfere with the availability of dietary supplements. Today’s hearing is just the latest example of the leadership you have shown on this important issue. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:3
    Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:4
    Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999) , the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:5
    The freedom of consumers to use, or even obtain truthful information about, dietary supplements could also be threatened by the United States participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization Food Standard Program operating under the authority of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:6
    Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to “harmonize” (e.g. conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:7
    While Codex has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States’ status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 199 report of the Congressional Research Service, “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws and regulations to conform with WTO rules!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:8
    If Congress were to refuse to “harmonize” US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO “dispute resolution panel” could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to “harmonize” our regulations with the rest of the world. In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 21:9
    In conclusion, we once again thank Chairman Burton for holding this hearing and for all his efforts to protect the freedom of American dietary supplement customers and for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the threat to American consumers posed by the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius process. We also express our hope that Congress will act to protect the freedom of American consumers from overregulation of dietary supplements whether imposed by the FDA or through the back door by an international organization such as the WTO.




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems

!DATE:
20 March 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by a half a percentage point. They have been asked to lower this interest rates by just about everybody in the country. Whether they are investors or politicians, everybody literally has been screaming at the Fed and Alan Greenspan to lower the interest rates, lower the interest rates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:2
It was anticipated that he would, and he did. He lowered the interest rates by 50 basis points. The stock market promptly went down 236 points. So obviously just lowering interest rates is not the solution to the problems we face. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:3
Interest rates have been manipulated by the Federal Reserve as long as I can remember, especially in the last 30 years since we have had a total fiat monetary system. So it is the manipulation of interest rates that causes a problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:4
In a free market economy, you do not have a central bank pretending it has knowledge it does not have, that it knows exactly what the money supply should be and what interest rate should be. That is a prescription for disaster; and it leads to booms and busts, speculations in the stock markets, crashes in the stock markets. This is a wellknown phenomenon. It has been with us since 1913, since we have had the Federal Reserve. We have seen it in the speculation in the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s. It is ongoing.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:5
We have a responsibility here in the Congress to deal with this. We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the money. Yet we up that responsibility to a secretive body that works on its own, deliberating and deciding how much money supply we should have.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:6
To lower interest rates, a central bank has to increase the money. That is debasement. That is devaluing the money deliberately. In the old days, when the king would do this, they would clip coins. Literally coin debasement, stealing value from coinage in the old days was a capital crime. Today, though, it is accepted practice in all economies of the world. We have had no linkage of any currency of the world in the last 30 years to anything of real value.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:7
The economies have functioned relatively well. But just in the last 6 years, we have had eight financial international crises, all patched together by more inflation, more printing of more money. Let me tell my colleagues, I am convinced it will not last, it will not continue.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:8
Take a look at what is happening in Japan today. Japan lowered their interest rates, too. They have been doing this for a long time. They are down to 0 percent, and nothing seems to be happening. Their stock market is at a level it was 16 years ago. We have to decide whether or not we may be moving into a similar situation. I think it is a very serious problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:9
We talk about interest rates. We talk about stimulating the economy. But we really do not talk about the problem, and that is the monetary system and the nature of the dollar.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:10
The money supply right now is currently rising at the rate of 20 percent, as measured by MZN. This is horrendous inflation. This is inflation. Everybody says no, there are reassurances. The Federal Reserve and all the statisticians say there is no inflation. The CPI is okay and the PPI is okay. But there is inflation. Because if one increases the supply of money, one is creating inflation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:11
The most important aspect of that is the instability it creates in the marketplace. It does not always lead to a CPI increasing at 10 or 15 percent. Our CPI is rising significantly. We have other prices going up significantly, like education costs and medical care costs, housing costs. So there is a lot of inflation even when one measures it by prices.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:12
But the real problem with the inflation when one allows a central bank to destroy its money is twofold. One, it creates an overcapacity or overinvestment, excessive debt that always has to be wiped out and cleaned out of the situation, or economic growth cannot be resumed. Japan has not permitted this to happen, and economic growth has not resumed. That is the most important aspect because that causes the unemployment and that causes the harm to so many people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:13
Now, there is another aspect of inflation, that is the monetary debasement that I have great concern about. That is, when it goes to extremes, it inevitably wipes out the middle class. It destroys the middle class. We are just starting to see that happening in this country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:14
Low middle-income earners, individuals who are still not on the dole but willing to work, they are having a tough time paying their bills. That is the early stages of what happens when a currency is destroyed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 22:15
Last year, for the first time in our history of keeping this record since 1945, in 55 years, the wealth of the American people went down 2 percent.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Addressing Monetary Problems

!DATE:
22 March 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the markets today are reeling. The financial markets are indeed in big trouble. This could mean a couple of things to all of us. First, it could mean economic hardship for many of our citizens. It also could mean that our budget figures will be completely changed here in the nottoo- distant future, and we should be paying attention.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:2
Some people claim that they are not quite sure why markets go up and all of a sudden crash; and others say if only Alan Greenspan would just print more money, inflate the currency faster, lower the interest rates, all would be well. But I do not think it is that simple.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:3
It is very clear that we have these cycles and these booms coming from a monetary system that is pure fiat. Fiat money means that the money is created out of thin air, and the characteristic of a fiat monetary system is that you have overspeculation, you have stock market booms, you have stock market crashes, and you have a business cycle. This comes from the mismanagement of money, mainly because man, in his efforts to plan, to have economic central planning through monetary policy, is incapable of providing the information necessary that a free market is supposed to have.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:4
Only a free market can tell us what interest rates should be or what the money supply should be. But we have become dependent on a Federal Reserve system that pretends to know all these things, and we have allowed Alan Greenspan to believe that he can regulate the entire economy as well as the stock market by the Open Market Committee.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:5
Inflation is nothing more than the creation of new money out of thin air. Sometimes it raises prices in certain areas, and other times in other places. But the whole principle of fiat money is when you create new money, you devalue/ lower the value of the dollar.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:6
This is what is happening. Right now we are increasing the money supply as measured by MZM at the rate of 20 percent per year. This means that, ultimately, that dollar that we use to purchase goods and services will go down in value. And yet the only thing that we hear about is the cry to the Federal Reserve, just print more money, faster, because that will save us all. It will raise the stock market; it will make sure that the economy does not go down and go into a downturn.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:7
This is not the case. Ultimately what we have to have is monetary reform, currency reform. We have to have a time when once again we have money that cannot be created out of thin air. We have to have money of value, something that governments and politicians cannot create out of thin air. Unless we address that, we are going to continue with these problems.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:8
This can be very serious. Just in the last year there has been $4 trillion of value lost in the stock market. Of course, it was artificially high, and now it is going to be artificially low, and these sudden changes reflect the disequilibrium built into the system once we have a monetary system of this sort.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:9
In 1996, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board talked about the exuberance, the irrational exuberance in the stock market; and yet I think he knew, I certainly knew, and others knew, that there was irrational exuberance, because even at that time we were printing money like crazy. There was overspeculation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:10
If he had been seriously concerned about the exuberance getting out of control in 1996, he might have considered not inflating the currency quite so rapidly, not devaluing the money quite so rapidly. But what has he done since that time? The Federal Reserve has literally created $2.3 trillion of new money since 1996, further creating a bigger bubble, which eventually had to collapse, and that is what we are in the midst of. It can be tough. It is going to be tough for a lot of people. We can have this economic downturn, and this means jobs and a standard of living that will be threatened.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:11
This type of a monetary system also encourages us to do things unwisely. When interest rates are lower than they are supposed to be, we borrow more money and we do not save as much money, so savings has a negative rate. Yet people are way in debt, business people are in debt, and then business people are actually encouraged to do things that are not wise. They overbuild; they build into the system overcapacity and mal-investment which eventually has to be cleansed out of the system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 23:12
So this mantra of saying all we need is more inflation will not work. Inflation caused the problem. The inflation of the monetary system is the problem. To believe that all we need is more inflation to solve the problem is a serious error. We need currency reform.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 24, 2001

!TITLE:
Free Trade
FREE TRADE — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - April 24, 2001)


[Page: E619] GPO’s PDF

  
---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 24, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in today’s Wall Street Journal which is headlined “Free Trade Doesn’t Require Treaties”. The column is authored by Pierre Lemieux, a professor of economics at the University of Quebec.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:2
    * Professor Lemieux seems to grasp quite well what few in Congress have come to understand — that is, “The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice — even if the former is a consequence of the latter.” Mr. Lemieux went on to point out that the leaders of the 34 participating states in the recent Quebec summit “are much keener on managed trade than on free trade and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:3
    * The professor’s comments are not unlike those of the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, devotee of the methodologically-superior Austrian school, who, with respect to NAFTA, had the following to say:


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:4
      [G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:5
    * In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” (and the impending request for fast track authority) fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:6
    * Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. Lemieux’s column and encourage the recognition “that free trade is but the individual’s liberty to exchange across political borders.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:7
      [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001]
      FREE TRADE DOESN’T REQUIRE TREATIES
      (By Pierre Lemieux)



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:8
      MONTREAL. The decades preceding World War I were a period of globalization that was at least as extensive as today’s. To the extent that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) moves this continent to ward freer trade, it would help recover the lost promise of the pre-1914 world. But the Quebec summit sent conflicting messages, none of them revolutionary.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:9
      The leaders of the 34 participating states showed that they are much keener on managed trade than on free trade, and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions. “The creation of a free trade area is not an end in itself,” said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:10
      With excruciating political correctness, he added: “We have focused on a global action plan of co-operation to reduce poverty, protect the environment, promote the adoption of labor standards and encourage corporate



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:11
      [Page: E620] GPO’s PDF
      responsibility.” The participants’ “Plan of Action” contained measures that range from tobacco regulation and gun control to the monitoring of financial transactions.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:12
      What of the “no passport” world celebrated by Keynes? In Quebec, as at other international trade meetings, state representatives behaved as agents of their country’s exporters. You give us this “concession,” they intone, and we will allow your exporters to enter our markets in return. Yet this misrepresents grossly the nature of trade and a free economy.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:13
      The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice — even if the former is a consequence of the latter. By presenting themselves as members of an exporters’ club, trade negotiators lay themselves open to attack by those who claim that free trade only works to the benefit of corporations.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:14
      Economists have known for centuries that free trade can be promoted without free-trade agreements. A country’s inhabitants would obtain many of the advantages of free trade if only their own government would stop imposing restrictions on imports. Behind the veil of financial transactions, products are ultimately exchanged against products, so that the more imports that come into a country, the more will foreign demand grow for its exports. Or else, foreign exporters will have to invest in the country, thereby creating a trade deficit; nothing wrong with that either.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:15
      In other words, if you want free trade, just trade. Much of the pre-World War I free trade was, indeed, due to Britain’s unilateral free-trade policies.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:16
      Trade agreements are only helpful to the extent that they help tame domestic producers’ interests, support the primacy of consumers, and lock-in the gains from trade. Such treaties should not aim at reducing competition by pursuing other goals, of the sort embraced by the heads of state at Quebec. That would amount to no more than managed trade, the pursuit of which, paradoxically, might be said to unite both the leaders present and the mobs demonstrating against them.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:17
      William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the Financial Post that the demonstrators who don’t trust governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily, from political constituencies generally known for their blind faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists, they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults, actually increase state power.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:18
      On one stretch of Saturday’s march, demonstrators wore large bar codes taped to their mouths, as if free trade meant turning them into speechless numbers. How droll! These demonstrators were certainly, and perhaps proudly, carrying in their wallets government-imposed Social Security numbers, drivers’ licenses and Medicare cards, which, surely, have made them numbered state cattle. Another fabulous irony: American would-be demonstrators complained about being denied entry into Canada, while their entire message is predicated on tighter borders.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 24:19
      Once we realize that free trade is but the individual’s liberty to exchange across political borders, it is easy to see that forbidding it requires punishment or threats of punishment. You have to fine or jail the importer who doesn’t abide by trade restrictions. In FTAA debates as in other trade issues, a source of much confusion is the failure to realize that free trade is a consequence of individual sovereignty.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 25, 2001

!TITLE:
A New China Policy



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:1
President Bush deserves much credit for the handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was “very” sorry for the incident. This seems a “very” small price to pay for the safe return of 24 American military personnel. Trade with China though should be credited for helping to resolve this crisis. President Bush, in the diplomatic handling of this event, avoided overly strong language and military threats, which would have done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:2
This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade with China, for economic reasons, encouraged both America and China to work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with China should be reconsidered. What today is called free trade is not exactly that. Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of many billions of dollars through the Export/Import Bank- the most of any country in the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:3
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It’s a risky, inconsistent policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:4
The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air space of the Gulf of Mexico?? We must realize that China is a long way from the US and is not capable, nor is she showing any signs, of launching an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:5
Throughout all of China’s history she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yaloo River.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:6
It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft, although it technically was the cause of the accident. Don’t forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976, it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia — in crates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:7
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually a strong case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights altogether. After a half a century it’s time to reassess the need for such flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and to listen to almost everyone on earth. If there is a precise need for this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel. We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological reassurance that we’re still the top military power in the world. This is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than strength.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:8
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:9
It is clear that war can only be declared by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us to war at some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:10
We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists and should be encouraged. It’s a fact that trade did help to resolve this current crisis without a military confrontation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:11
Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods, as some would like, but they do come back and they serve to finance our current account deficit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:12
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export/Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military technology to such a nation, or to any nation for that matter.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:13
It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles, coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid, were seen on the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear that arming the enemies of our trading partners doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the weaponry of Taiwan, and to maintain an open commitment to send our troops if the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence, is foolhardy and risky.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:14
Don’t forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a “monster to slay” in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures- some of these are planned, some contrived, and some accidental.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:15
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:16
We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their problems. Needless to say we don’t have the legal authority to do so either.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:17
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:18
It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:19
James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident President Eisenhower said, “We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:20
We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years. It’s time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions, especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:21
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:22
Today, it looks like there’s a much better chance of North and South Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of bombs to resolve the conflict, which was unsuccessful.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:23
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a peaceful trade with the people with Vietnam. Our willingness over the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 25:24
It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
U.S. Intervention In South Korea

!DATE:
25 April 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 25, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the attached article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, as I believe it accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite effect.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:2
SOUTH KOREA FEARS BUSH TEAM IS HINDERING DETENTE WITH NORTH (By Jay Solomon)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:3
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Amid heightened tension between the U.S. and China over the downing of an American spy plane, frustration is mounting inside President Kim Dae Jung’s government that President Bush’s Asia policies are undercutting ties between North and South Korea.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:4
President Kim has made his peace initiative toward reclusive North Korea — with whom the South remains technically at war — a cornerstone of his administration. Mr. Bush’s advisers say they are still reviewing the merits of engaging the communist North, but a number of Mr. Kim’s aides fear time is running out since his term ends next year.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:5
Fueling this unease among some in Mr. Kim’s government is their belief that the Bush administration views peace on the Korean Peninsula as working against its principal security interests. Central to this is Mr. Bush’s plans to build a national missiledefense shield, for which North Korea’s missile program is a primary justification. U.S. military and intelligence officials have played up in recent weeks both the military and nuclear threats posed by North Korea’s military, re-emphasizing the Pentagon’s need to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:6
Now, the U.S.-China standoff over an American surveillance plane that landed on China’s Hainan island is fanning fears that a renewed Cold War will grip North Asia. “The U.S.’s dependence upon a Cold War strategy . . . is causing the detente mood (on the Korean Peninsula) to collapse,” says Jang Sung Min, a legislator with the Millennium Democratic Party and an aide to Mr. Kim. He fears the U.S.’s pursuit of missile defense will exacerbate this tension by leading to a renewed arms race between regional powers China, Japan and Russia.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:7
The South Korean Foreign Ministry, while officially maintaining that it is too early to judge Mr. Bush’s policy vis-a-vis North Korea, also is expressing skittishness toward Washington’s intentions. Spokesman Kim Euy Taek says the ministry hopes “the Bush administration will rethink its skepticism” toward North Korea after completing its review of the Clinton team’s policies toward Pyongyang.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:8
For its part, the Bush administration doesn’t accept the premise that its actions are undermining Seoul’s peace initiative. “We continue to strongly support President Kim’s policy of engagement with North Korea,” a State Department spokesman in Washington says. “We share a common concern about the nature and level of the military threat from North Korea, and we continue to discuss ways to deal with that.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:9
Just three months ago, expectations were high that a peace pact could be signed between allies South Korea and the U.S. and North Korea. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had held an unprecedented meeting with North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong II, after the North sent a senior envoy to Washington. President Clinton was seriously considering a deal in January where North Korea would scrap some weapons programs in exchange for financial aid.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:10
Kim Dae Jung’s government followed up by scheduling a March summit with Mr. Bush in Washington in hopes of picking up where Mr. Clinton left off. Instead Mr. Bush voiced “skepticism” toward Kim Jong II’s intentions and placed all talks with North Korea on hold pending the Clinton-policy review.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:11
This rebuke has fueled a marked deterioration in North-South relations. Last month, Pyongyang halted peace talks with the South, a sporting exchange has been cancelled, and Kim Jong II’s proposed trip to South Korea during the first half of the year has been delayed to the second half — at the earliest.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 26:12
Now, President Kim and his supporters are left hoping Mr. Bush’s team will quickly wrap up their review of North Korea policy and sign on to new peace talks. If not, however, there is a helpless sense of what can actually be achieved without Washington’s imprimatur. Hahn Hwa Kap, a senior member of President Kim’s Millennium Democratic Party, says: “The longer this process takes, the longer it will take for North-South relations to improve.”

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 26, 2001

!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - April 26, 2001)


[Page: E645] GPO’s PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 26, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 27:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 27:2
    * It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 27:3
    * These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 27:4
    * It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 26, 2001

!TITLE:
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE US CODE (APRIL 26, 2001) — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - April 26, 2001)


[Page: E647] GPO’s PDF


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 28:1

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 26, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:2
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today’s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . I fear that this source is not widely read among many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally applicable to our current selective service system and the registration requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:3
      [Taipei Times on line edition, Thurs. Apr. 26, 2001]
      CONSCRIPTION IS HARMING TAIWAN
      By Chang Yung-chien



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:4
      Some time ago, the media reported on would-be conscripts scrambling to grab a place in the “alternative service” to military conscription. There is now an uproar over President Chen Shul-blan’s future son-in-law, who escaped doing his term of military service because he had gout. The issue of military service has again struck a sensitive chord in Taiwan’s society.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:5
      Why do so many people feel disgruntled? This writer has always advocated a volunteer military recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these reasons totally incomprehensible.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:6
      Military recruitment is a public policy matter. It needs to undergo an analysis for cost-effectiveness. Why do we have “reserve officers” and “alternative service” systems?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:7
      We have them precisely so that skilled people can be more valuable for the country if they are pulled out from the ranks to serve as platoon leaders or as cheap labor for high-tech companies. Once this point is clear, then the alternative service system will seem quite strange. Someone with a PhD in electrical engineering would be working in a high-tech company anyway if he were not



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:8
      [Page: E648] GPO’s PDF
      doing alternative service. The only difference is that he would be getting a reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay. By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical engineering can get paid according to her market value because she does not have to do military service. NVhy should we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to corporations?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:9
      Moreover, society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited almost a year to be conscripted — doing nothing (of course, two years of military service are also spent doing nothing). Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They waste the most creative time of their lives writing military reports that do not help the nation’s economy or the people’s livelihood.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:10
      How many people have left the country before conscription age just to evade those two years, and come back only after they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How many mutinies have we had in the armed forces?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:11
      Our president, who can carry his wife to and from her wheelchair every day, did not have to do military service because of a problem with his “hands.” And the president’s future son-in-law is busy running in


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:12
      I would also like to ask: Why can’t I finish my studies before serving my country? Even if I have to serve two years as a conscript, I will be of far more use to the country providing legal services to ordinary citizens than just do drills and jogging. How much more of its human resources can Taiwan afford to waste?


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:13
      As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the military simply means loafing around, then such service may be worth less than NT$10,000 a month. But there should be no such “profession.” If being a soldier is a high-risk profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government, but it must be remembered that only people who can freely enter various professions on the job market can maximize their value.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:14
      Unless we believe that the average productivity of conscription-age males is worth less than NT$10,000 or so per month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth without conscription than the government coffers have to lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those conscription-aged men who would be working in society instead.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 28:15
      No talk about “honor” solves any problems. Everyone sets out from a rational, self-interested standpoint. What the state should do is maximize the benefits for society as a whole, not limit its thinking to military service. Maintaining a conscription system certainly does more harm than good. Those who wear the badge “being a soldier is a good experience” should ask themselves whether they would be willing to do it again.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act

!DATE:
26 April 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:3
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:8
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Inflation Is Still With Us

!DATE:
3 May 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 3, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, almost on a daily basis, government officials reassure us there is no inflation to worry about. But, today’s definition of inflation of rising prices as measured by an artificial CPI and PPI is seriously flawed. Rising prices are but one of the many consequences of true inflation — which is an increase in the supply of money and credit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:2
To understand the perversities of inflation one must look to the money supply. The money supply, as measured by M3, rose an astounding $42 billion last week and is up a whopping $210 billion in the past ten weeks. MZM, another important measure of inflation, is rising at the rate of 27%. Now that’s monetary debasement!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:3
But rising prices, a reflection of monetary inflation, should not be dismissed as so many government economists have done. The current first quarter GDP report shows a 3.3% rise in the personal consumption price index, well above the 1.9% recorded in last year’s fourth quarter.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:4
And what about the record prices for gasoline? To pretend that gasoline prices pose little threat to American consumers is naive — not to mention the skyrocketing electricity bills they also face.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:5
The most serious economic myth that Federal Reserve economists perpetuate is that a booming economy causes prices to rise and a slowing economy will hold “inflation” in check. Ever since 1971, when the fiat dollar was established, records show that during each of our economic slumps, prices rose even faster than they did during periods of economic growth, supporting the argument that rising prices are a consequence of monetary policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:6
Although the economy is now slowing, and fuel prices are skyrocketing for the airlines, Delta pilots are receiving salary increases of between 24 and 34%. Other evidence of labor cost increases is now available even with the large and growing number of announced layoffs. Wage prices pressure is more often than not a consequence of monetary policy, not a tight labor market.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:7
Rising prices and the economic slowdown must be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, the existing financial bubble is a consequence of the same policy of monetary expansion and artifically low interest rates. Although the NASDAQ bubble has already partially deflated, the entire world financial system suffers from the same distortion; and a lot more adjustment is required. Merely re-inflating with monetary expansion and manipulating interest rates will not solve the problems of debt, mal-investment and overcapacity that plague the system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:8
Mismanaging world fiat currencies and working to iron out the trade imbalances that result, through a worldwide managed trade organization, will not suffice. We must one day address the subject of sound money and free market interest rates, where interest rates are not set by the central banks of the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:9
A sad consequence of today’s conditions is that monetary policy encourages transfer of wealth and power to the undeserving. The victims of bad monetary policy then blame capitalism for the inequities. The leftist demonstrators at recent WTO, IMF, and World Bank meetings make a legitimate point that the current system has resulted in accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of some at the expense of others.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 30:10
But this is an expected consequence of monetary debasement, which generally leads to social unrest. But, blaming capitalism and freedom for the harm done by inflationism, special interest corporatism, and interventionism presents a danger to us all, since the case for commodity money and individual liberty is lost in the shouting. Unless this message is heard and distinguished from the current system, freedom and prosperity will be lost. Leaders of the current worldwide system that has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet empire pay lip service to free trade and free markets, but tragically they are moving us toward a fascist system of partnerships with government, big businesss, and international banking at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 10, 2001

!TITLE:
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
(House of Representatives - May 10, 2001)

[Page: H2137] 

 
GPO’s PDF


  
---



   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to present several amendments in dealing with especially the United Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:2
   The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:3
   I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe the United Nations itself is starting to make my point.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:4
   Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these commissions.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:5
   I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to the United Nations today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:6
   Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:7
   The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:8
   Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:9
   I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, I do not think the American people support this, and that we should reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:10
   There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little sentence in here and say “please do not use any of the money for abortion,” that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If we specifically say “do not use them,” they can just shift the funds around, so I see that as not being a very good idea.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 31:11
   I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to subsidize events like abortion.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 1646

!DATE:
10 May 2001

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DIAZBALART) for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Committee on International Relations but I would like to express my disappointment that of my amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules, none of them were approved. That was a great disappointment to me.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:3
I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed, some of which I will support.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:4
I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:5
I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers’ money for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:6
The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax. This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent. This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United Nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:7
Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N. soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in Bosnia should arouse our concern.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:8
The only way, since we do not have the amendments to reject outright some of this wasteful and harmful funding, the only way we who believe that our sovereignty is being challenged is to reject 1646. I see no other way to address this subject, because it is not in our best interest to go along with this.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 32:9
The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we should be contending with.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
International Criminal Court

!DATE:
10 May 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DELAY in expressing serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the International Criminal Court (ICC).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:2
Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DELAY because it singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to “rescue” citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of legitimacy to the ICC.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:3
It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:4
The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:5
The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Adjounment

!DATE:
10 May 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 14, 2001, at 2 p.m.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:

!DATE:
16 May 2001

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in opposition to tax-supported abortion.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 35:2
I would like to address the subject of the gag rule. As many of my colleagues know, if there is any violation whatsoever of any civil liberties or the Constitution, no matter how well intended a piece of legislation is, I will vote against it. On occasion even though I’m strong pro-life, I have occassionally voted against pro-life legislation for that reason.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 35:3
But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 35:4
Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an infraction on the first amendment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 35:5
As a matter of fact, I think this is a bad choice and bad tactics for those who support abortion, because this is like rubbing our nose into it when the people who feel so strongly against abortion are forced to pay for abortion, to pay for the propaganda and to pay for the lobbying to promote abortion. Ultimately, the solution will only come when we defund overseas population control.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote

!DATE:
16 May 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
May 22, 2001

Hearing before the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee

!TITLE:
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:1
I wish to thank the subcommittee on Social Security of the Ways and Means Committee for holding this hearing on the misuse of the Social Security number. The transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier is a subject of increasing concern to the American people. This is, in large part, because the use of the Social Security number as a standard identifier facilitates the crime of identity theft. Today, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and have had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:2
The responsibility for the misuse of the Social Security number and the corresponding vulnerability of the American people to identity crimes lies squarely with the Congress. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:3
Because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem. In order to protect the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate identity crimes, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:4
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:5
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:6
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:7
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:8
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:9
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? !


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:11
Mr. Chairman, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, HHS’s misnamed “medical privacy” proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 37:12
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing would lead to serious Congressional action to end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing Hr 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
May 22, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people’s concerns over education by embracing education “reforms,” which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. “Trust us,” proponents of new federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which “all children are above average.” Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new “reforms.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:2
   Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” A better title for this bill is “No Bureaucrat Left Behind” because, even though it’s proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the word “ensure” 150 times, “require” 477 times, “shall” 1,537 and “shall not” 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:3
   H.R. 1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states’ can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states’ and local communities’ authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:4
   Some will claim that this does not violate states’ control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people’s own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:5
   Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will inevitably fashion their test to match the “nationally-normed” test so as to relieve their students and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:6
   teachers of having to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses to conform their standards with other national tests “for the children’s sake.” After all, what state superintendent wants his state’s top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best jobs, or even student loans, because their state’s test is considered inferior to the “assessments” used by the other 49 states?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:7
   National testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated “assessment.” After all, federal funding depends on how students perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by saying “there is only one way to read and do math.” Well then what are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:8
   Proponents of H.R. 1 justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools “accountable.” Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which participating schools performance is judged. Even under the much touted Straight “A”s proposal, schools which fail to live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals” will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. Federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the Straight “A”s programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s education plan — yet this is the only part of the bill which even attempts to debureaucratize and decentralize education!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:9
   Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:10
   As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:11
   The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:12
   When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:13
   According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and the student’s SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:14
   I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: “Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 38:15
   If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children’s unique educational needs than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
May 23, 2001

!TITLE:
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:1
Thank you for your interest in revising the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) medical privacy regulations. I respectfully urge HHS to revise those sections of the bill that reduce medical privacy by allowing the government increased access to medical records.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:2
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:3
HHS should ensure that the regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment by requiring that law enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:4
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:5
HHS should also repeal those sections of the regulations that provide private parties with a right to access private medical records for reasons unrelated to treatment. Particularly offensive are those sections which allow medical researchers to access private records without individual consent. While researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes runs the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:6
I am also aware that some will make the argument that there is a “social good” in medical research that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. As a physician, I certainly recognize the value and importance of medical research. However, as a legislator, I also recognize that because people have a property interest in their medical information, forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s taking clause, which was designed to prevent sacrifices of individual liberty and property for the “common good.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:8
Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 39:9
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Sudan Peace Act

!DATE:
13 June 2001

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, although I do not contest for 1 minute the sincerity and the good intentions of the many, many cosponsors. I do not question the problems that exist in Sudan. There is no doubt that it is probably one of the most horrible tales in human history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:2
But I do question a few things. First, I question whether this is a proper function for our government. I raised this question in the committee, suggesting that it could not be for national security reasons, and it more or less was conceded this has nothing to do with national security but it had to do with America’s soul. I was fascinated that we are in the business of saving souls these days.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:3
But I do have serious concerns about its effectiveness, because we have a history of having done these kinds of programs many times in the past, and even in Africa. It was not too many years ago that we were in Somalia and we lost men. Our soldiers were dragged in the streets. It was called nationbuilding. This is, in a way, very much nation-building, because we support one faction over the thugs that are in charge.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:4
I certainly have all the sympathy and empathy for those individuals who are being abused, but the real question is whether or not this will work. It did not work in Somalia. We sent troops into Haiti. Haiti is not better off. How many men did we lose in Vietnam in an effort to make sure the people we want in power were in power?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:5
So often these well-intended programs just do not work and frequently do the opposite by our aid ending up in the hands of the supposed enemy. I seriously question whether this one will, either. Maybe in a year or 2 from now we will realize that this is an effort that did not produce the results that we wanted. It is a $10 million appropriation, small for what we do around here, but we also know that this is only the beginning, and there will be many more tens of millions of dollars that will be sent in hopes that we will satisfy this problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:6
Members can look for more problems to solve, because right now there are 800,000 children serving in the military in 41 countries of the world. That is another big job we would have to take upon ourselves to solve considering our justification to be involved in Sudan.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:7
Mr. Chairman, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, in continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to “police” the world. It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures such as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seemingly is lost on this Congress.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:8
Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18 which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the “necessary and proper” clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws “necessary and proper” to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such “foregoing” authority is cited by the advocates of this bill.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:9
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says “compel . . . good faith peace”] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:10
The legislative “tools” to be used to “facilitate” this aforementioned “comprehensive solution” are as frightening as the nation-building tactics. For example, “It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:11
One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:12
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating “the nature and extent of . . . commercial activity in Sudan” as it relates to “any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.” It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agencies’ previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:13
There is more, however. Buried deep within the bill in Section 9 we find what may be the real motivation for the intervention — Oil. It seems the bill also tasks the Secretary of State with generating a report detailing “a description of the sources and current status of Sudan’s financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation, the effects of such financing and construction on the inhabitants of the regions in which the oil fields are located.” Talk about corporate welfare and the ability to socialize the costs of foreign competitive market research on the U.S. taxpayer!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:14
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill truly has it all — an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 40:15
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill for each of the above-mentioned reasons and leave to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best render help to citizens of Sudan and all countries where human rights violations run rampant.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Internationalizing SEC

!DATE:
13 June 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:1
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.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, mainly because I do not think it is a good move to have the SEC internationalized to begin with, and to further internationalize it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:3
For one thing, cracking down more on foreign oil companies that are doing business in Sudan will not necessarily prohibit the benefits that may flow to the American oil companies if there is a change in government. We should not ignore that. We go to war over oil. We went to war over oil in the Persian Gulf, and certainly we had oil as an influence to send in many dollars and much equipment down into Colombia.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:4
But just let me read from the bill. It says the Secretary of State will report back on a description of the sources and the current status of Sudan’s financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation; the effects of such financing and construction of the inhabitants of the region. It goes on, which in a way does a lot of research and benefit for our oil companies that may benefit. So I think oil is involved, but in quite a different way than I think we should be involved in dealing with the foreign oil companies today. So I am not going to support this amendment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:5
I would like to take another moment to mention something which is considered an esoteric point, but I consider very important, and that has to do with the authority to do these kinds of things that we are doing today, no matter how well intended. The committee report explains the authority, and the supporters of the bill says the authority comes from article one, section 8, clause 18. And they look to the right place. Article one, section 8 gives us our 18 enumerated powers that we are permitted to do. The clause 18 is the necessary and proper clause: to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:6
The foregoing powers were those 18 issued. To use this in a generalized sense means there is no constitution left. That means any power we want, we can do whatever we want. That was specifically designed to pass laws to enforce those 18 enumerated powers. So this bill, in spite of all the good intentions that we hope it will do, really undermines the whole concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:7
And we should not take that lightly, although this generally is not of much interest to so many people because we do so much and we have such great hopes that it will always do so much good. From just observing history, recent history, the last 20, 30, 40 years since World War II, so often when we get involved and we send money to help the good guys, it is not infrequent the good things that we send in, goods and services and weapons, end up in the hands of the opposition and the enemy. So that is always a possibility once again. These commodities and services and the things that we send and the money may well end up literally being used against the people we are trying to help.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:8
The other thing that we tend to ignore here is we concentrate on the good things that we are going to accomplish. Miraculously, we are going to solve this problem by putting $10 million in today and $100 million in the next 5 years, and everything is going to be solved. We do not think about it failing, because that would be a negative, and we do not want to think about that. We do not think about the Constitution, and we do not think about who pays. Somebody always has to pay. This is token. Who cares about $10 million? When we take $10 million out of the economy, there is somebody who suffered; somebody did not get a house or somebody lost a job. But they are not identifiable. They do not have a lobbyist. They are lost. But they are penalized. There is always a cost.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:9
And even if we assume we have a surplus and the money is already in the budget, we still should be concerned because we are making a choice. We are saying that we are going to take this money and take the risk of sending it over there. Maybe it will help. Maybe I am right, maybe it will not do quite as much good as we think, but we make a trade-off. We say today that we will send this money with the hope that it will do good at the expense of a domestic program. Do my colleagues think every poor person in this country has been taken care of, their medical care needs or housing? So we do make choices continuously, but we forget about that.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 41:10
We never really think about the choices that we make, and there is always a trade-off. And we generally always forget about finding the point in the Constitution that gives us authority. In this case, this is the wrong authority, and it is not a proper interpretation of the Constitution as described in the committee report.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Conscription Policies

!DATE:
13 June 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 13, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article “Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription” by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro’s Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:2
Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modem military require career professionals with longterm commitments to the service, not shortterm draftees eager to “serve their time” and return to civilian life. The military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful military function. In 1993), the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on a system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:3
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen’s article then cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:4
TURNING EIGHTEEN IN AMERICA: THOUGHTS ON CONSCRIPTION
(By Michael R. Allen)
In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R–Oregon) proposed legislation that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:5
This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed. The dovish Hatfield’s arguments in promotion of the bill constituted what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:6
This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted “living Constitution” makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:7
Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army — assuming the country needs any army at all — will yield those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the nation for as long as they need.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:8
Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:9
Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:10
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:11
It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:12
Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of America has not bought — bought off, tricked and fooled, yes — any of her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, emergency readiness, and social outcome.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:13
Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 1980 US News and World Report article that “Middle and upper-class America are not sufficiently participating in the defense of the country today except in the officer corp. That’s one of the tragedies of the volunteer force . . .”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:14
Nunn’s provocative statement is not only designed to evoke resentment towards the “privileged” upper classes, it is also not sound from a practical point of view. Certainly, the classes with a statistically higher amount of college education should be involved in positions in which education can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn argument involves some sort of “duty” the upper classes have to live the life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a feeble attempt at egalitarian blurring of class distinction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:15
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them.

AMERICORPS



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:16
There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:17
Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called “Social Security,” he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 42:18
As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government’s powers, the Selective Service System/ AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 13, 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 43:1
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 13, 2001

!TITLE:
Faith Based Initiatives



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:2
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, “The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative” by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:3
    * If religious organizations receive taxpayer monies, they will have an incentive to make obedience to the dictates of federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to avoid displeasing their new federal paymaster. This will occur in large part because people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations will assume they “gave at the (tax) office” and thus will reduce their level of private giving. Thus, religious charities will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune” federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of “faith-based” programs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:4
    * Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that funding religious organization will increase federal control of religious programs; in fact the current proposal explicitly forbids proselytizing in federally-funded “faith-based” programs. While religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a cross on its wall or a Jewish day center to hang a Star of David on its’ door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:5
    * Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:6
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read Miss Parker’s article and join her in supporting a return to a constitutional policy that does not put faith in federal programs but instead in the voluntary actions of a free and compassionate people.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:7
      [From GOPUSA.COM, May 25, 2001]
      THE REAL THREAT OF THE FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE
      (By Star Parker)



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:8
      The faith-based initiative is our latest proof that politicians are great entrepreneurs in finding ways to expand the scope of government, their own power and control over our lives. This particular initiative should be of concern to all because, in the best scenario, it will only waste money. In the worst case, however, it will be destructive to our nation.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:9
      Although for President Bush this initiative is a crusade to reach minorities, welfare programs have already done enough damage in black America. Government dependency has created an environment in which black illegitimacy rates have soared seventy percent. This time the victim of government intervention will be the black church.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:10
      However, there is an even deeper concern facing us than this.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:11
      Those who claim that the faith-based initiative merely saves charitable programs of religious organizations from discrimination miss the most basic point. The main reason faith-based programs are successful is the fact that free people choose to fund them and that free people choose to participate in them.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:12
      The truth is that we all are already participating in a great faith-based initiative. It is called the United States of America and its principles and rules are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:13
      When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:14
      It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:15
      Our goal should be to eliminate government from those aspects of our society that have been politicized: not to politicize the very faith and freedom that have made our country great. The very idea of welfare is the antithesis of both faith and freedom.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:16
      A true faith-based initiative is one defined by freedom and not one defined by politics. Humankind already has a tragic history of incidents where governments and politicians have gotten into the business of defining faith and religion.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 43:17
      I respect our President, but he is dead wrong on this one. We still have billions of unused dollars in our welfare budgets. Let us return these funds to our citizens and exercise true faith that they will make the right decisions regarding charitable giving. Let us remember the simple wisdom of Ronald Reagan that government is the problem, not the solution.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Resolution Condemning The Taliban

!DATE:
13 June 2001

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of our Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It gives us an opportunity to at least condemn the Taliban in forcing the wearing of these symbols.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:1
Sometimes I think, though, that this type of legislation is more feel-good legislation, makes us feel better, but does not do a whole lot to solve our problems. I think it would be more important to take this opportunity to think about our policy of foreign interventionism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:2
We have been involved in Afghanistan now for more than two decades, and have spent over $1 billion. Last year we spent $114 million in humanitarian aid. This year it is already $124 million.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:3
It is said that it is not sent to the Taliban, but the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER), who is a bit of an expert on Afghanistan, just revealed to us earlier that indeed some of this money and some of this aid was designated to go to the Taliban-controlled areas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:4
I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:5
The point that I would like to make is after these many, many millions of dollars and over $1 billion have been spent, we have come to this. They are in worse shape than ever. Yes, we can condemn what they are doing, but we should question whether or not our policy in Afghanistan has really served us well, or served the people well. It may well be that when we send aid, that it literally helps the Taliban, because they do not have to then buy food. They can take their money and use it to enforce these rules and to be a more authoritarian society, to buy weapons.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:6
We do know that when we sent weapons in the eighties, those weapons actually ended up in the hands of the violent Taliban, and they are still in their hands to some degree. Yes, our policy is well-intended. We would like to do good and save all the suffering that is happening in this country. But quite frankly, it has not worked very well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:7
We should question this. I believe we should assume some responsibility in the sense that our aid does not always do what it was supposed to do and actually ends up helping the very people that we detest. I think that is exactly what has happened here. It has been specifically pointed out that some of this aid has gone into the area where the Taliban has been helped and strengthened.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 44:8
All I am suggesting is, why not question this a little bit? Why should we go on decade after decade after decade expanding aid and getting these kinds of results that we all detest?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Not Isolationism

!DATE:
13 June 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to get into the Marshall Plan, but there is a pretty strong case to indicate that the major part of the rebuilding of Europe came from private capital and not specifically from the immigration plan.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 45:3
But the point that I would like to answer to is the term “isolationism.” I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I am for openness, travel, trade. I vote consistently that way, so the term “isolationist” does not apply to the policies that I am talking about, because I am probably for more openness in trade and travel than most anybody in this body.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 45:4
So the term is not isolationism.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 21, 2001

!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - June 21, 2001)


[Page: E1175] GPO’s PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 21, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Foods are not Drugs Act, a constitutional and common sense piece of legislation. This bill stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:2
    * The Foods are not Drugs Act accomplishes its goal by simply adding the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug.” This allows food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:3
    * Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. For example, in 1998, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpul product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:4
    * The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Foods are not Drugs Act ends this breakfast table censorship.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:5
    * The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers’ first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:6
    * Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 46:7
    * In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Foods are not Drugs Act.




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”

!DATE:
27 June 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 27, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues’ attention to the attached article “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” by John Berlau of Insight magazine, which outlines the latest example of government spying on innocent citizens. Mr. Berlau deals with the Post Office’s “Under the Eagle’s Eye” program which the Post Office implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act. Under this program, postal employees must report purchases of money orders of over $3,000 to federal law enforcement officials. The program also requires postal clerks to report any “suspicious behavior” by someone purchasing a money order. Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for reporting “suspicious behavior” are so broad that anyone whose actions appear to a postal employee to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary could become the subject of a “suspicious activity report,” and a federal investigation!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:2
As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:3
I am sure I do not need to remind my colleagues of the public’s fierce opposition to the “Know Your Customer” proposal, or the continuing public outrage over the Post Office’s proposal to increase monitoring of Americans who choose to receive their mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency (CMRA). I have little doubt that Americans will react with the same anger when they discover that the Post Office is filing reports on them simply because they appeared “suspicious” to a postal clerk.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:4
This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office’s regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these “Know Your Customer” type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau’s article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying “Eagle Eye” of the Federal Government.

POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU
(By John Berlau)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:5
Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, ‘Under the Eagle’s Eye,’ and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:6
Remember “Know Your Customer”? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer’s “normal and expected transactions” and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a “suspicious activity.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:7
But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a “suspicious” customer. It doesn’t matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video obtained by Insight, is: “It’s better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal ID transaction get by.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:8
Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post office’s customer-surveillance program, called “Under the Eagle’s Eye,” to the “Know Your Customer” rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual also obtained by Insight, postal clerks are admonished to “know your customers.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:9
Both the manual and the training video give a broad definition of “suspicious” in instructing clerks when to fill out a “suspicious activity report” after a customer has made a purchase. “The rule of thumb is if it seems suspicious to you, then it is suspicious,” says the manual. “As we said before, and will say again, it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:10
It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn’t know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. RON PAUL, RTexas, who led the charge on Capitol Hill against the “Know Your Customer” rules, expressed both surprise and concern about “Under the Eagle’s Eye.” He says the video’s instructions to report transactions as suspicious are “the reverse of what the theory used to be: We were supposed to let guilty people go by if we were doing harm to innocent people” when the methods of trying to apprehend criminals violated the rights of ordinary citizens. PAUL says he may introduce legislation to stop “Under the Eagle’s Eye.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:11
The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of “Know Your Customer,” this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. “The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers’ privacy,” Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. “This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government’s business. I had thought the postal-service’s eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, ‘We’re watching you!’ ”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:12
But postal officials who run “Under the Eagle’s Eye” say that flagging customers who do not follow “normal” patterns is essential if law enforcement is to catch criminals laundering money from illegal transactions. “The postal service has a responsibility to know what their legitimate customers are doing with their instruments,” Al Gillum, a former postal inspector who now is acting program manager, tells Insight. “If people are buying instruments outside of a norm that the entity itself has to establish, then that’s where you-start with suspicious analysis, suspicious reporting. It literally is based on knowing what our legitimate customers do, what activities they’re involved in.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:13
Gillum’s boss, Henry Gibson, the postalservice’s Bank Secrecy Act compliance officer, says the anti-money-laundering program started in 1997 already has helped catch some criminals. “We’ve received acknowledgment from our chief postal inspector that information from our system was very helpful in the actual catching of some potential bad guys,” Gibson says.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:14
Gillum and Gibson are proud that the postal service received a letter of commendation from then-attorney general Janet Reno in 2000 for this program. The database system the postal service developed with Information Builders, an information-technology consulting firm, received an award from Government Computer News in 2000 and was a finalist in the government/nonprofit category for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program. An Information Builders press release touts the system as “a standard for Bank Secrecy Act compliance and antimoney- laundering controls.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:15
Gibson and Gillum say the program resulted from new regulations created by the Clinton-era Treasury Department in 1997 to apply provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act to “money service businesses” that sell financial instruments such as stored-value cash cards, money orders and wire transfers, as well as banks. Surprisingly, the postal service sells about one-third of all U.S. money orders, more than $27 billion last year. It also sells stored-value cards and some types of wire transfers. Although the regulations were not to take effect until 2002, Gillum says the postal service wanted to be “proactive” and “visionary.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:16
Postal spokesmen emphasize strongly that programs take time to put in place and they are doing only what the law demands.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:17
It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the “Know Your Customer” rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy. Lawrence Lindsey, now head of the Bush administration’s National Economic Council, frequently has pointed out that more than 100,000 reports are collected on innocent bank customers for every one conviction of money laundering. “That ratio of 99,999-to-1 is something we normally would not tolerate as a reasonable balance between privacy and the collection of guilty verdicts,” Lindsey wrote in a chapter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s book The Future of Financial Privacy, published last year.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:18
Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency’s reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. “It sounds to me that they’re going past the Treasury guidelines,” says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of “red flags,” such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:19
The video, which Gibson says cost $90,000 to make, uses entertaining special effects to illustrate its points. Employing the angeland- devil technique often used in cartoons, the video presents two tiny characters in the imagination of a harried clerk. Regina Goodclerk, the angel, constantly urges the clerk to file suspicious-activity reports on customers. “Better safe than sorry,” she says. Sam Slick, the devil, wants to give customers the benefit of the doubt.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:20
Some of the examples given are red flags such as a sleazy-looking customer offering the postal clerk a bribe. But the video also encourages reports to be filed on what appear to be perfectly legal money-order purchases. A black male teacher and Little League coach whom the female clerk, also black, has known for years walks into the post office wearing a crisp, pinstriped suit and purchases $2,800 in money orders, just under the $3,000 daily minimum for which the postal service requires customers to fill out a form. He frequently has been buying money orders during the last few days.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:21
“Gee, I know he seems like an okay guy,” Regina Goodclerk tells the employee. “But buying so many money orders all of a sudden and just under the reporting limit, I’d rather be sure. He’s a good guy, but this is just too suspicious to let go by.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:22
Gillum says this is part of the message that postal clerks can’t be too careful because anyone could be a potential money launderer. “A Little League coach could be a deacon in the church, could be the most upstanding citizen in the community, but where is that person getting $2,800 every day?” Gillum asks. “Why would a baseball coach, a schoolteacher in town, buy [that many money orders]? Our customers don’t have that kind of money. If he’s a schoolteacher, if he’s got a job on the side, he’s going to have a bank account and going to write checks on it, so why does he want to buy money orders? That’s the point.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:23
Despite the fact that the Little League coach in the video was black, Gillum insists that the postal service tells its employees not to target by race or appearance.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:24
One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105–A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driver’s license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105–B, the “suspicious-activity” report. “Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105–A form to one that doesn’t should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form,” the training manual says.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:25
But the “suspicious” customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. “I think there’s a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think it’s none of the post office’s business,” Singleton tells Insight. “The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:26
Both Singleton and Nojeim say “Under the Eagle’s Eye” unfairly targets the poor, minorities and immigrants — people outside of the traditional banking system. “A large proportion of the reports will be immigrants sending money back home,” Nojeim says. Singleton adds, “It lends itself to discrimination against people who are sort of marginally part of the ordinary banking system or who may not trust things like checks and credit cards.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:27
There’s also the question of what happens with the information once it’s collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about “suspicious” customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerks’ reports if they fit “known parameters” for suspicious activity. “We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights,” Gillum insists. “For what it’s worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:28
But Gillum would not discuss any of the “parameters” the postal service uses to test for suspicious activity, saying that’s a secret held among U.S. law-enforcement agencies. And if a clerk’s report isn’t sent to the Treasury Department, it still lingers for some time in the postal-service database. Gillum says that by law the postal service will not be able to destroy suspicious-activity reports for five years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:29
Gillum says the postal service is very strict that the reports only can be seen by law-enforcement officials and not used for other purposes such as marketing. A spokeswoman for the consulting company Information Builders stated in an e-mail to Insight, “Information Builders personnel do not have access to this system.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:30
Observers say problems with “Under the Eagle’s Eye” underscore the contradiction that despite the fact that the postal service advertises like a private business and largely is self-supporting, it still is a government agency with law-enforcement functions.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:31
Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking, money orders. “Being a government agency, we feel it’s our responsibility that we should set the tone,” he said. The Treasury Department “basically challenged us in the midnineties to step up to the plate as a government entity,” Gillum adds.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:32
In fact, Gillum thinks Treasury may mandate that the private sector follow some aspects of the postal-service’s program. He adds, however, that the postal service is not arguing for this to be imposed on its competitors.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:33
In the meantime, the private sector is getting ready to comply with the Treasury regulations before they go into effect next January. But if 7-Eleven Inc., which through its franchises and company-owned stores is one of the largest sellers of money orders, is any guide, private vendors of money orders probably will not issue nearly as many suspicious- activity reports as the postal service. “’Our philosophy is to follow what the regulations require, and if they don’t require us to fill out an SAR [suspicious-activity report] . . . then we wouldn’t necessarily do it,” 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris tells Insight. Asked specifically about customers who cancel or change a transaction when asked to fill out a form, Chabris said, “We are not required to fill out an SAR if that happens.” So why does the U.S. Postal Service?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 47:34
That’s one of the major issues raised by critics such as Postal Watch’s Merritt. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as “Under the Eagle’s Eye” before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. “Let’s hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I don’t think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagle’s eye,” he says.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission

!DATE:
27 June 2001
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 27, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
June 28, 2001

!TITLE:
INTRODUCTION OF EDUCATION BILLS -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - June 29, 2001)
[Page: E1262] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 28, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 49:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two bills designed to help improve education by reducing taxes on parents, teachers, and all Americans who wish to help improve education. The first bill, the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, extends the HOPE Scholarship tax credit to K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the HOPE Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents finally afford to send their child to a private school, while other parents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their childrens’ school.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 49:2
    * Mr. Speaker, reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools. This is not just because expanding the HOPE Scholarship bill will increase the funds devoted to education but because, to use a popular buzz word, individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education, or for students performance on a test that may measure little more than test-taking skills or the ability of education bureaucrats to design or score the test so that “no child is left behind,” regardless of the child’s actual knowledge. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction into fulfilling bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The only way to change this system is to restore control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools meet their demands that children be provided a quality education.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 49:3
    * My other bill, the “Professional Educators Tax Relief Act” provides a thousand dollar per year tax credit to all professional educators, including librarians, counselors, and others involved in implementing or formulating the curriculum. This bill helps equalize the pay gap between educators and other professionals, thus ensuring that quality people will continue to seek out careers in education. Good teaching is the key to a good education, so it is important that Congress raise the salaries of educators by cutting their taxes.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 49:4
    * Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring my Hope Plus Scholarship Act and my Professional Educators Tax Cut Act.





2001 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Re-Importation of Pharmaceuticals

!DATE:
11 July 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices they should support this amendment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 50:2
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 50:3
Opponents of this amendment have been waging a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. I dispute this claim for several reasons. Unlike the opponents of this amendment I do not believe that consumers will purchase an inferior pharmaceutical simply to save money. Instead, consumers will carefully shop to make sure they are receiving the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. In fact, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they only purchase safe products without interference from Big Brother.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 50:4
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would consider how our current policies endanger safety by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less than the proper amount of a prescription medicine in order to save money or forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 50:5
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to know what is in their best interest by voting for the Sanders amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
July 17, 2001

!TITLE:
REIMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 17, 2001)


[Page: E1345] GPO’s PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 17, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter I was unable to be present for roll-call votes last week. I particularly regret not being in attendance for the votes on the amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bills offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Roll Call no. 216) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Roll Call no. 217) dealing with the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. I would have enthusiastically supported both amendments had I been able to be here last week and I was quite disappointed to see the gentleman from Vermont’s amendment rejected and pleased to see the gentleman from Minnesota’s amendment accepted by this body.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:2
    * I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I supported these amendments. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect low-income senior citizens because many seniors have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and lower than average income. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market, such as those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should have supported these amendments.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:3
    * As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:4
    * Opponents of the amendments offered by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota waged a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. Acceptance of this argument requires one to assume that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying a quality product. However, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they purchase safe products without interference from Big “Mother.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:5
    * Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the current policies which endanger health by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some senior citizens even forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals this amendment will help ensure no child has to take less than the recommended dosage of a prescription medicine and no senior has to choose between medication and food.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 51:6
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again wish to express my regret for missing the votes on the amendments by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota and urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interest, by supporting future efforts to establish a true free market in pharmaceuticals.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 17, 2001

!TITLE:
A BAD OMEN
-- (House of Representatives - July 17, 2001)
[Page: H4021] GPO’s PDF ---



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:1
   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:2
   Mr. PAUL . Mr. Speaker, the trial of Slobadon Milosevic threatens U.S. sovereignty. The fact that this trial can be carried out, in the name of international justice, should cause all the Americans to cast a wary eye on the whole principal of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. The prosecution of Milosevic , a democratically elected and properly disposed leader of a sovereign country, could not be carried out without full U.S. military and financial support. Since we are the only world superpower, the U.N. court becomes our court under our control. But it is naive to believe our world superpower status will last forever. The precedence now being set will 1 day surely come back to haunt us.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:3
   The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:4
   Money, as usual, is behind the Milosevic’s extradition. Bribing Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, a U.S.-sponsored leader, prompted strong opposition from Yugoslavian Prime Minister Zoran Zizic and Yugoslavian President Vojislaw Kostunica.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:5
   A Belgrade historian, Aleksa Djilas, was quoted in The New York Times as saying: “We sold him for money, and we won’t really get very much money for it. The U.S. is the natural leader of the world, but how does it lead? This justifies the worst American instincts, reinforcing this bullying mentality.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:6
    Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:7
   For all this to be accepted, the press and internationalists have had to demonize Milosevic to distance themselves from the horrors of others including NATO.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:8
   NATO’s air strikes assisted the KLA in cleansing Kosovo of Serbs in the name of assisting Albanian freedom fighters. No one should be surprised when that is interpreted to mean tacit approval for Albanian expansionism in Macedonia. While terrorist attacks by former members of the KLA against Serbs are ignored, the trial of the new millennium, the trial of Milosevic , enjoys daily support from the NATO-U.S. propaganda machine.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:9
   In our effort to stop an independent-minded and uncooperative with the international community president of a sovereign country, U.S. policy was designed to support an equally if not worse organization, the KLA.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:10
   One of the conditions for ending the civil war in Kosovo was the disbanding of the KLA. But the very same ruthless leaders of the KLA, now the Liberation Army of Presovo, are now leading the insurrection in Macedonia without NATO lifting a finger to stop it. NATO’s failed policy that precipitated the conflict now raging in Macedonia is ignored.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:11
   The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:12
   Realizing the weakness of the charges against Milosevic the court has quietly dropped the charges for committing genocide. In a real trial, evidence that the British and the United States actually did business with Milosevic would be permitted. But almost always, whoever is our current most hated enemy, has received help and assistance from us in the past. This was certainly the case with Noriega and Saddam Hussein and others, and now it’s Milosevic .


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:13
    Milosevic will be tried not before a jury of his peers but before a panel of politically appointed judges, all of whom were approved by the NATO countries, the same countries which illegally bombed Yugoslavia for 2 1/2 months. Under both U.N. and international law the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was illegal. This was why NATO pursued it and it was not done under a U.N. resolution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:14
   Ironically, the mess in which we’ve been engaged in Yugoslavia has the international establishment supporting the side of Kosovo independence rather than Serbian sovereignty. The principle of independence and secession of smaller government entities has been enhanced by the breakdown of the Soviet system. If there’s any hope that any good could come of the quagmire into which we’ve rapidly sunk in the Balkans, it is that small independent nations are a viable and reasonable option to conflicts around the world. But the tragedy today is that no government is allowed to exist without the blessing of the One World Government leaders. The disobedience to the one worlders and true independence is not to be tolerated. That’s what this trial is all about. “Tow the line or else,” is the message that is being sent to the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:15
   NATO and U.S. leaders insist on playing with fire, not fully understanding the significance of the events now transpiring in the Balkans. If policy is not quickly reversed, events could get out of control and a major war in the region will erupt.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:16
   We should fear and condemn any effort to escalate the conflict with troops or money from any outside sources. Our troops are already involved and our money calls the shots. Extricating ourselves will get more difficult every day we stay. But the sooner we get out the better. We should be listening more to candidate George Bush’s suggestion during the last campaign for bringing our troops home from this region.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:17
   The Serbs, despite NATO’s propaganda, will not lightly accept the imprisonment of their democratically elected (and properly disposed) president no matter how bad he was. It is their problem to deal with and resentment against us will surely grow as conditions deteriorate. Mobs have already attacked the American ambassador to Macedonia for our inept interference in the region. Death of American citizens are sure to come if we persist in this failed policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:18
   Money and power has permitted the United States the luxury of dictating terms for Milosevic’s prosecution, but our policy of arbitrary interventions in the Balkans is sowing the seeds of tomorrow’s war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:19
   We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it’s dealing with Milosevic , Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 52:20
   A policy of nonintervention, friendship and neutrality with all nations, engagement in true free trade (unsubsidized trade with low tariffs) is the best policy if we truly seek peace around the world. That used to be the American way.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Flag Burning Amendment

!DATE:
17 July 2001

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:2
Mr. Speaker, I do not think what we are doing here today is a contest between who is the most patriotic. I do not think that is it at all. Nobody here in the debate is unpatriotic. But I think the debate is possibly defining patriotism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:3
But I am concerned that we are going to do something here today that Castro did in Cuba for 40 years. There is a prohibition against flag burning in Cuba. And one of the very first things that Red China did when it took over Hong Kong was to pass an amendment similar to this, to make sure there is no desecration of the Red Chinese flag. That is some of the company that we are keeping if we pass this amendment.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:4
A gentleman earlier on said that he fears more of what is happening from within our country than from without. I agree with that. But I also come down on the side that is saying that the threat of this amendment is a threat to me and, therefore, we should not be so anxious to do this. I do not think you can force patriotism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:5
I also agree with the former speaker who talked about responsibility. I agree it is about responsibility. But it also has something to do with rights. You cannot reject rights and say it is all responsibility and therefore we have to write another law. Responsibility implies a voluntary approach. You cannot achieve patriotism by authoritarianism, and that is what we are talking about here.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:6
I think we all agree with respect to the flag and respect for our country. It is all in how we intend to do this. And also this idea about veterans, because you are a veteran that you have more wisdom. I do not think so. I am a veteran, but I disagree with other veterans. Keith Kruel, who was a past national commander of the American Legion had this to say:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:7
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:8
He was the national commander of the American Legion. So I am not less patriotic because I take this different position.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:9
Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:10
The first amendment, we must remember, is not there to protect noncontroversial speech. It is to do exactly the opposite. So, therefore, if you are looking for controversy protection it is found in the first amendment. But let me just look at the words of the amendment. Congress, more power to the Congress. Congress will get power, not the States. That is the opposite of everything we believe in or at least profess to believe in on this side of the aisle.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:11
To prohibit. How do you prohibit something? You would need an army on every street corner in the country. You cannot possibly prevent flag burning. You can punish it but you cannot prohibit it. That word needs to be changed eventually if you ever think you are going to get this amendment passed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:12
Physical desecration. Physical, what does it mean? If one sits on it? Do you arrest them and put them in jail? Desecration is a word that was used for religious symbols. In other words, you are either going to lower the religious symbols to the state or you are going to uphold the state symbol to that of religion. So, therefore, the whole word of desecration is a word that was taken from religious symbols, not state symbols. Maybe it harks back to the time when the state and the church was one and the same.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:13
I urge a “no” vote on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, loyalty and conviction are admirable traits, but when misplaced both can lead to serious problems.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:14
More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:16
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:17
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:18
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin — were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:19
Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, “Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ . . . A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:20
Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to an object — what Mr. Kruel calls the “golden calf” — we had more Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this issue would be far better handled.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:21
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:22
The correct solution is to reassert the 10th Amendment. The states should be unshackled from unconstitutional federal restrictions.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:23
As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional traditions and liberties.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 53:24
Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
July 17, 2001

!TITLE:
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE


07/17/01
 


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 54:1
My office has received hundreds of phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters supporting Mr. Schulz and Mr. Croteau. I think they are sincere in their beliefs, even though I strongly disagree with their hunger strike. I believe we can work with the IRS, the administration, and Congress to get answers to their questions, and I know that Congressman Bartlett and I are willing to assist them in their efforts. However, it is imperative that these gentleman end their fast immediately. No cause is served by their needless suffering.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 54:2
The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 54:3
The attention generated by Mr Schulz and his organization shows that many Americans are fed up with the tax system. It’s an outrage that most tax professionals, much less typical taxpayers, cannot understand the incredibly complex tax code. It’s an outrage that so many have had their lives destroyed by the IRS. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government. Congress needs to address the tax mess legislatively, by drastically simplifying and drastically reducing taxes. My own legislation would repeal the 16th Amendment and put an end to individual income taxes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Schulz and thousands of other Americans have very strong feelings about our tax system, and it needs to be fixed. Their voices should not be ignored. Mr. Schulz and his supporters can make their voices heard at the ballot box, by electing candidates who sincerely believe in changing the tax system.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Prosecuting Milosevic

!DATE:
18 July 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 55:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the case of Milosevic is a case that will come back to haunt us for two reasons: one, we are setting a precedent. This has never happened before. He was democratically elected in a country and democratically disposed. The country there was willing to prosecute him.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 55:3
The second part is that this stirs up tremendous anti-American sentiment. This is the reason why we are the greatest target in the world for terrorism, because of our intrusion into these areas, pretending that we always know best and that we will trample the law because it serves our self-interests. But I believe our national security and our interests are not best served in this manner. This policy is very dangerous.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 55:4
Likewise, we have had many examples of U.N. intervention. Rwanda, can we be proud of that? Can we be proud of what the U.N. and what our troops had to go through with the humiliation in Mogadishu in Somalia? I mean, this was horrible, what happened there. So good intentions will not suffice. Just because there are good intentions, it does not mean that good will come of it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 55:5
There is an alternative to a single world government, and that is individual governments willing to get along; open and free trade as much as possible, free travel, people having a unified free market currency where we do not have currency devaluations and poverty throughout the world. There is a lot that can be done with freedom, rather than always depending, whether it is here in the United States or at the international level, on more government.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 18, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
   Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL :


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:1
    SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:2
   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:3
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:4
   Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, “None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:5
   I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:6
   In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, “Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we’ll pay our dues this year; but maybe we’ll withhold our dues next year.” That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:7
   It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:8
   If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:9
   Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:10
   It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:11
   The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:12
   No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:13
   But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 56:14
   I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations

!DATE:
18 July 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 7 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WOLF) will control 10 minutes in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:4
Mr. Chairman, quite possibly we will not have to take a long time on this. In many ways this is a similar amendment, but different with respect to as how the money would be spent after we send it to the United Nations. The amendment says, “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for the United Nations peacekeeping operations.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:5
This is getting more specifically into the militarization of the United Nations and the unfairness of our bill that we get sent every year. We pay 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping missions. A lot of times we pay up front and pay in advance, and we do not get reimbursed. Then we hear a lot of complaints when we do not pay our dues.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:6
But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have justification based only on our national security, I see this money as being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:7
It is not beyond comprehension that one day in the not-too-distant future that we may be in a much hotter war in the Yugoslovia area. Things are not very peaceful in Macedonia, and they are actually demonstrating against Americans in Macedonia. The same people that we supported in Kosovo, the KLA, now they have changed their name and they are the radical Albanians playing havoc in Macedonia. And it is with our money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:8
And what do we do? We ask the American people to cough up. We tax them. We go over, and for 78 days, with the claim that we are bringing peace to the area, for 78 days we bombed that area, and now we are asking the American people to rebuild it. So first we tax them to bomb and destroy then we insist we rebuild the area.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:9
We did not bring peace by 78 days of bombing. As matter of fact, most of the death and destruction and hostility toward America was developed during those 78 days. It did not occur prior to that. There were few deaths in comparison. And who were the people killed with our bombs dropping from 30,000 feet? Were they military people? No. Innocent people, as they are in Iraq as well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:10
It is out of control. It is out of our hands. We have lost control of our destiny when it comes to military operations. We now go to war under U.N. resolutions, rather than this Congress declaring war and fighting wars to win.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:11
We have given up a tremendous amount, and I believe it is time we stood up for the American people and the American taxpayer and say we ought to defend America, but we can deal with the problems of the world in a much different manner; not by militarizing and controlling it the best we can, the military operations of the United Nations, but pursuing the spreading of our values and our beliefs and the free market in a much different manner than by further taxation of the American people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:12
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:13
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:14
Let me just close by saying that I urge a “yes” vote to stop the funding for the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, believing very sincerely that they do not do much good and they do harm and potentially a great deal of harm in the future. They do not serve our national self-interests. We have the United Nations now involved in the Middle East, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia, West Sahara, and Yugoslavia. It requires a lot of money. The most likely thing to come of all of this will be more hostility toward America and more likelihood that we will be attacked by terrorists.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:15
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 57:16
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876

!DATE:
18 July 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, July 18, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Constitution of the great State of Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:2
The Lone Star State’s highest legal document has served Texans since 1876 and — to commemorate this important milestone in Texas history — the recent Regular Session of the 77th Texas Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 319, which the Governor signed on June 15, 2001. I would like to share with my colleagues the full text of the Legislature’s H.C.R. No. 319 as follows:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:3
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 319
Whereas, The year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Texas Constitution, and the 125th anniversary of this foundation document is indeed worthy of special recognition; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:4
Whereas, On August 2, 1875, Texas voters approved the calling of a convention to write a new state constitution; the convention, held in Austin, began on September 6, 1875, and adjourned sine die on November 24, 1875; then its draft was ratified in a statewide referendum on February 15, 1876, by a vote of 136,606 to 56,652; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:5
Whereas, The more than 90 delegates to the 1875 Constitutional Convention were a diverse group — most were farmers and lawyers; some were merchants, editors, and physicians; some were legislators and judges; some had fought in the Civil War armies of the South as well as of the North; at least five were African-American; 75 were Democrats; 15 were Republicans; and 37 belonged to the Grange, a non-partisan and agrarian order of patrons of husbandry; one delegate had even served nearly four decades earlier as a delegate to the 1836 Constitutional Convention; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:6
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876, a richly detailed instrument, reflects several historical influences; the Spanish and Mexican heritage of the state was evident in such provisions as those pertaining to land titles and land law, as well as to water and mineral law, and remains evident in judicial procedures, legislative authority, and gubernatorial powers; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:7
Whereas, Sections aimed at monied corporate domination together with protection of the rights of the individual and others mandating strong restrictions upon the mission of state government in general and upon the role of specific state officials grew out of the Jacksonian agrarianism and frontier philosophy that first infused the thinking of many Texans during the mid-1800’s; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:8
Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:9
Whereas, Notwithstanding its age, Texas voters have been reluctant to replace this charter, which is the sixth Texas constitution to have been adopted since independence from Mexico was gained in 1836; and


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:10
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876 has been the organic law of Texas for 125 years, and this document, which still bears the imprint of the region’s long and dramatic history, has had — and continues to have — a profound influence on the development of the Lone Star State; now, therefore, be it


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 58:11
Resolved, That the 77th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 2001, hereby commemorate the quasquicentennial of the Texas constitution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Tribute To Tom Phillips And William Rusher

!DATE:
19 July 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 19, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, August 4th Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) will hold its National Convention in Newport Beach, California. At this event the organization will honor two fine people. Mr. Tom Phillips, Chairman of Phillips International, will receive the organization’s highest award, the Guardian of Freedom. Mr. Phillips has been a strong supporter of YAF and is involved in various other entities engaged in the fight for liberty. As publisher of “Human Events,” he has helped to further a publication steeped in the tradition of freedom. Mr. Phillips has also shown a particular interest in the kind of private preservation activities I so frequently advocate. Rather than leave it to the taxpayers to fund and the federal government to manage, Mr. Phillips has personally helped to fund the preservation of President Reagan’s Ranch by the Young America’s Foundation so that it might be used as a training ground for young people dedicated to the individual liberty which President Reagan spoke of so often.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 59:2
Also, at this event, Mr. William Rusher will receive a lifetime achievement award. Mr. Rusher was instrumental in the founding of YAF in 1960 around those set of principles enunciated in the Sharon Statement, a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom. In addition, Mr. Rusher was instrumental in many other important activities such as the Draft Goldwater Committee and the National Review Magazine.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 59:3
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to honor YAF as it prepares for its 41st year of training young men and women in the philosophy of freedom and holds its National Convention, as well as to offer my congratulations to these honorees.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 19, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:2
   Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations assume they “gave at the (tax) office” and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune” federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of “faith-based” programs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:3
   Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in “faith-based’ programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:4
   H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear “reasonable” during the program’s first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:5
   Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government’s stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:6
   We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:7
   Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:8
   Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:9
   Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:10
   Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:11
   The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:12
   Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them “marketable” skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:13
   Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:14
   Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 60:15
   In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Export-Import Bank

!DATE:
24 July 2001

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests Members follow regular order.


!CITE:
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.)


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 61:12
This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at constitutional law.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Export-Import Bank Amendment

!DATE:
24 July 2001

AMENDMENT NO. 56 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 2, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 17 on page 3.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2, line 21 entitled “subsidy appropriation.” I do not believe this Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:3
This paragraph is found in the bill which is called “foreign operations.” It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest trade, and I think that is wrong.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:4
There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:5
Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:6
It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export- Import Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:7
There is a lot of mal-investment in the economy, misappropriation of money and investments that generates overcapacity, which is a consequence of monetary policy. It is a serious problem; and we are today facing the consequence, because we are now moving into a rather severe recession. But at the same time, export financing compounds that problem. It adds on to it because it is an allocation of credit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:8
This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a ripoff. The taxpayer suffers all of the risks.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:9
Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal going for large corporations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:10
If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S. Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good deal for them?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:11
They say it is a good deal for Boeing workers, but in 1995 there was a strike by the machinists against Boeing because Boeing agreed to buy the tail portion of the 737 from Red China.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 62:12
We are certainly losing jobs to Red China, Mexico, and other places. I do not mind it if that is a market consequence, but when it is done at the expense of the American taxpayer and it hurts us, we should not do it.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Export-Import Bank

!DATE:
24 July 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 63:2
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman makes the point that we fund in our Export-Import Bank less compared to other nations. That possibly is true.

Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 63:3
Mr. PAUL. The gentleman argues for an increase. But is it not true that the United States has had a healthier economy in the last 10 years than most of our competitors, indicating that it probably has not done us that much harm by not doing the same things that other countries do by penalizing their people with high taxation and making these subsidies?

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, our economic health relies on a lot of things, but we cannot confuse cause and effect. If we lost our export sector, we would be in deep trouble.

Take my own home State, for example, agriculture being one of the two major largest exporters. One-third, maybe even more, of everything we grow, like the rest of this country, is export. If we lose that base, if we would write off 95 percent of the world’s people, we are in a hopeless condition.

I would say to the gentleman, I understand his ideological reasons for offering this. I happen to dramatically disagree. I think American citizens do not support the unilateral disarmament.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 63:4
Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, why is it assumed that there would be no export funds available to export goods if we did not subsidize the exports?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act

!DATE:
24 July 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems with this move to extend the Iran/ Libya Sanctions Act.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:2
First, the underlying Act places way too much authority both to make determinations and to grant waivers, in the hands of the President and the Executive Branch. As such, it is yet another unconstitutional delegation of authority which we ought not extend. Moreover, as the Act applies to Libya, the authority upon which the bill depends is a resolution of the United Nations. So, any member who is concerned with UN power should vote against this extension.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:3
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at “persons” engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:4
Mr. Speaker, I support those portions of this bill designated to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:5
The Bush Administration would prefer this legislation to expire and, failing that, they prefer taking a first step by making the extension last for a shorter period. In this I believe the Administration has taken the correct position. For one thing, there have been moves, particularly in Iran, to liberalize. We harm these attempts by maintaining a sanctions regime.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:6
I also have to point out the inconsistency in our policy. Why would we sanction Iran but not Sudan, and why would we sanction Libya but not Syria? I hear claims related to our national security but surely these are made in jest. We subsidize business with the People’s Republic of China but sanction Europeans from helping to build oil refineries in Iran.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:7
There has been a real concern in our country regarding the price of gasoline. Since these sanctions are directly aimed at preventing the development of petroleum resources in these countries, this bill will DIRECTLY RESULT IN AMERICANS HAVING TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE AT THE GASOLINE PUMP. These sanctions HURT AMERICANS. British Petroleum and others have refused to provide significant investment for petroleum extraction in Iran because of the uncertainty this legislation helps to produce. The tiny nation of Qatar has as much petroleum related investment as does Iran since this legislation went into effect. Again, this reduces supply and raises prices at the gas pump.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:8
Will the members of this body return to their district and tell voters “I just voted to further restrict petroleum supply and keep gas prices high”? I doubt that.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:9
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the legislative realities as regards this legislation and the powerful interests that want it extended. However, it is not just myself and the Bush Administration suggesting this policy is flawed. The Atlantic Council is a prestigious group cochaired by Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft that has suggested in a recent study that we ought to end sanctions upon Iran.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 64:10
Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for us to consider the U.S. interest and the benefits of friendly commerce with all nations. We are particularly ill-advised in passing this legislation and hamstringing the new Administration at this time. I must oppose any attempt to extend this Act and support any amendment that would reduce the sanction period it contemplates.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 24, 2001

!TITLE:
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 24, 2001)


[Page: E1417] GPO’s PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 24, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:2
    * Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS’s misnamed “federal privacy” regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into a health care database.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:3
    * When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, their was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:4
    * It should be clear to every member of Congress that the American public does not want a uniform medical identifier. Therefore, rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should simply repeal the authorization of the national medical ID this year.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:5
    * As an OB/GYN-with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:6
    * I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:7
    * Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:8
    * This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:9
    * The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:10
    * Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 65:11
    * Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 26, 2001

!TITLE:
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 26, 2001)
[Page: E1451] GPO’s PDF


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 66:1
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 26, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:2
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, encouraged in part by a recent resolution passed by the Texas State Legislature, I rise again this Congress to introduce my bill to lift the United States Embargo on Cuba.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:3
    * On June 29, 2001, the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated:



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:4
    * “We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:5
    * I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:6
    * Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these ares. The department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:7
    * Still, support for sanctions continues in Congress. The House International Relations committee last week considered legislation that will extend existing economic sanctions against Iran and Libya for another 5 years. While I certainly oppose this legislation, I did agree with the



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:8
    * I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein’s rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America’s position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:9
    * The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:10
    * I submit for inclusion in the record, a copy of the Sense of Congress Resolution passed in Austin in late June.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:11
      SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 54
      Whereas, The relationship between the United States and Cuba has long been marked by tension and confrontation; further heightening this hostility is the 40-year-old United States trade embargo against the island nation that remains the longest-standing embargo in modern history; and


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:12
      Whereas, Cuba imports nearly a billion dollars’ worth of food every year, including approximately 1,100,000 tons of wheat, 420,000 tons of rice, 37,000 tons of poultry, and 60,000 tons of dairy products; these amounts are expected to grow significantly in coming years as Cuba slowly recovers from the severe economic recession it has endured following the withdrawal of subsidies from the former Soviet Union in the last decade; and


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:13
      Whereas, Agriculture is the second-largest industry in Texas, and this state ranks among the top five states in overall value of agricultural exports at more than $3 billion annually; thus, Texas is ideally positioned to benefit from the market opportunities that free trade with Cuba would provide; rather than depriving Cuba of agricultural products, the United States embargo succeeds only in driving sales to competitors in other countries that have no such restrictions; and


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:14
      Whereas, In recent years, Cuba has developed important pharmaceutical products, namely, a new meningitis B vaccine that has virtually eliminated the disease in Cuba; such products have the potential to protect Americans against diseases that continue to threaten large populations around the world; and


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:15
      Whereas, Cuba’s potential oil reserves have attracted the interest of numerous other countries who have been helping Cuba develop its existing wells and search for new reserves; Cuba’s oil output has increased more than 400 percent over the last decade; and


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:16
      Whereas, The United States’ trade, financial, and travel restrictions against Cuba hinder Texas’ export of agricultural and food products, its ability to import critical energy products, the treatment of illnesses experienced by Texans, and the right of Texans to travel freely; now, therefore, be it


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 66:17
      Resolved,




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 26, 2001

!TITLE:
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 26, 2001)
[Page: E1453] GPO’s PDF


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 67:1
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 26, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:2
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in the Wall Street Journal which is headlined “In Praise of an Economic Revolutionary.” The column is authored by Mr. Bob McTeer, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:3
    * In his article, Mr. McTeer highlights the life of Frederic Bastiat, a member of the French Chamber of Deputies during the 19th century who made great contributions to both individual liberty and free markets with clear, simple and humorous observations and arguments. Bastiat was a pioneer in the field of economics who fought against the protectionist fallacies and absurdities that persisted in his day and indeed continue to haunt us today.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:4
    * Bastiat understood well what few in Congress have come to grasp--that it is absurd to favor producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. This is because producers and sellers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. As a consequence, when government policies favor producers, the citizens of the United States are faced with scarcity and unnecessarily high prices. In essence, the economic pie is made smaller for all.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:5
    * As members of Congress we should note, as Bastiat did, that because we have limited resources and unlimited wants, it is unwise to create inefficiencies for the purpose of creating or protecting jobs. As Mr. McTeer writes, “Progress comes from reducing the work needed to produce, not increasing it.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:6
    * By supporting protectionist policies that tend to create stagnation and hurt consumers, some members stand in the way of economic progress that would benefit all. Yet we should reject these policies and in the tradition of Bastiat do away with the absurd notice that inefficiencies are good for this country and its people.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:7
    * Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. McTeer’s column and encourage the recognition of the economic revolutionary, Frederic Bastiat.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:8
      IN PRAISE OF AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTIONARY
      (By Bob McTeer)



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:9
      “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else,”--Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:10
      Claude Frédéric Bastiat was born in Bayonne, in the southwest of France, 200 years ago last Friday. This week, I kicked off a conference in nearby Dax, France, celebrating Bastiat’s contributions to individual liberty and free markets.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:11
      The whole world should be celebrating the birthday of this pioneer of free-market capitalism.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:12
      Bastiat’s output was prodigious, especially in the last five years of his life. Through his writing and speeches, and as a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, Bastiat fought valiantly against the protectionism and socialism of his time. He proselytized for free trade, free markets and individual liberty. His weapons were wit and satire; his method was the reductio ad absurdum. More than any other person before or since, he exposed economic fallacies with a clarity, simplicity and humor that left opponents with no place to hide.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:13
      The most famous example of Bastiat’s satire was his petition to the French parliament on behalf of candlemakers and related industries. He was seeking relief from “ruinous competition of a foreign rival who works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price.” The foreign rival was the sun. The relief sought was a law requiring the closing of all blinds to shut out the sunlight and stimulate the domestic candle industry.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:14
      Despite the publication of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” decades earlier, Bastiat was still fighting the mercantilist view of exports as good and imports as bad. He pointed out that under this view, the ideal situation would be for a ship loaded with exports to sink at sea. One nation gets the benefit of exporting and no nation has to bear the burden of importing.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:15
      Bastiat once saw an editorial proposing a Bordeaux stop on the railroad from Paris to Spain to stimulate local business. He wondered, why only Bordeaux? Why not have a stop in every single town along the way--a never-ending series of breaks--so the prosperity could be enjoyed by all? They could call it a “negative railroad.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:16
      This point is true even today. Trade with Mexico has boomed since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and so has truck traffic across the Rio Grande. Luckily we have bridges to facilitate the crossing. But while the bridges were made for crossing, the hundreds of warehouses near the border were not. They’re for storing and waiting--where Mexican truckers are required to hand over their cargo to domestic carriers. Bastiat had his “negative railroads.” We have “negative bridges.”


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:17
      Then there’s Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy. It seems someone broke a window. It’s unfortunate, but there’s a silver lining. Money spent to repair the window will being new business to the repairman. He, in turn, will spend his higher income and generate more business for others. The broken window could ultimately create a boom.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:18
      Wait a minute, Bastiat cautioned. That’s based only on what is seen. You must also consider what is not seen--what does not happen. What is not seen is how the money would have been spent if the window had not been broken. The broken window didn’t increase spending; it diverted spending.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:19
      Obvious? Sure, but we fall for a version of the broken-window fallacy every time we evaluate the impact of a government program without considering what taxpayers would have done with the money instead. Some people even judge monetary policy by what happens, without considering what might have happened.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:20
      Most economic myths give way to Bastiat’s distinction between the seen and the unseen. Related concepts include half truths and whole truths, intended and unintended consequences, the short run and long run and partial effects and total effects. Henry Hazlitt expanded on these themes in his wonderful book, “Economics in One Lesson.” If you don’t have time to read Bastiat’s collected works, try Hazlitt’s book.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:21
      Bastiat called attention to the absurdities that come from favoring producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. Producers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. Government policies favoring producers, therefore, tend to favor scarcity over abundance. They shrink the pie.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:22
      Bastiat stressed that because we have limited resources and unlimited wants, it’s foolish to contrive inefficiencies just to create jobs. Progress comes from reducing the work needed to produce, not increasing it. Yet, a day doesn’t pass that we don’t hear of some proposal to “create jobs,” as if there’s no work to be done otherwise. If it’s jobs we want, let’s just replace all the bulldozers with shovels. If we want even more work, replace shovels with spoons. Bastiat suggested working with only our left hands.


      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 67:23
      I was cautioned that most of the participants in the Bastiat conference would probably be from other countries, since Bastiat’s free-market views aren’t highly regarded in France. That reminded me of my visit to Adam Smith’s grave in Scotland a couple of years ago. I went into a souvenir shop about a block away and asked what kind of Adam Smith souvenirs they had. They not only didn’t have any, they’d never even had a request for one before. What a shame!




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
July 31, 2001

!TITLE:
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we’re being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:2
   As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning off-track, dangerous, and missing some very important points.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:3
   This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:4
   However, this debate is as much about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:5
   This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:6
   Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:7
   Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:8
   There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:9
   The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a Presidential order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:10
   Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:11
   The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:12
   The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:13
   Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:14
   There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:15
   Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes a national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:16
   There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:17
   Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:18
   How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:19
   For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:20
   Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:21
   If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:22
   The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:23
   What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:24
   Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:25
   We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:26
   This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:27
   If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 68:28
   Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Crazy For Kazakhstan

!DATE:
1 August 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 1, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the Op Ed article “Crazy for Kazakhstan — Asian nation of vital interest” by former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson published in “The Washington Times” on July 30, 2001. Mr. Richardson has been working with countries of Central Asia, particularly with oil rich Kazakhstan, for a long time and has an extensive expertise in the region. I think we can rely on his assessments. In the article he outlines achievements of Kazakhstan and defines this country one of the promising “of all the countries rising from the ashes of the Soviet Union”.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:2
Indeed, Kazakhstan, despite the difficulties of its transition period, has carried out large scale economic and political reforms, especially when compared to the rest of the newly independent states.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:3
Kazakhstan is a young country located in a critically strategic region with “rough” neighbors and it is crucial for the U.S. to work with this country both politically and economically to ensure their security, independence and progressive development.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:4
This year is the 10th anniversary of Kazakhstan’s independence and during this period Kazakhstan has shown its commitment to work with the U.S. in many areas, including sensitive ones, and has proven to be our reliable partner.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:5
Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Richardson that this key Central Asian country is of great importance to U.S. interests. Kazakhstan in many ways should be seen as our natural ally in the region. The time has come for the U.S. to pay closer attention to this country and be more engaged with it. For this reason I cosponsored the legislation (H.R. 1318) that would grant permanent trade relations to Kazakhstan.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:6
I submit the full text of this article from “The Washington Times” to be placed in the RECORD.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:7
[From the Washington Times, July 30, 2001]
CRAZY FOR KAZAKHSTAN
(By Bill Richardson)
As secretary of energy and ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, I traveled three times to Kazakhstan to underscore the importance of this key Central Asian country to U.S. interests. Of all the countries rising from the ashes of the Soviet Union, few offer the promise of Kazakhstan. In terms of both economic potential and political stability, Kazakhstan is critical to the long-term success of the Central Asian nations. The Bush administration should continue our policy of engaging Kazakhstan to ensure that this key country moves towards the Western orbit and adopts continued market and political reforms.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:8
From its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 to the Present, Kazak leaders have made the difficult and controversial decisions necessary to bring their country into the 21st century. In May 1992, President Nursultan Nazarbayev announced that Kazakhstan would unilaterally disarm all of its nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Kazakhstan was left with the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, a tempting target for terrorists and other extremists. Mr. Nazarbayev’s courageous decision to disarm in the face of opposition from Islamic nationalists and potential regional instability was one of the fundamental building blocks that have allowed Kazakhstan to emerge as a strong, stable nation and a leader in Central Asia. Then-President George Bush hailed the decision as “a momentous stride toward peace and stability.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:9
Since that time, Central Asia has become an increasingly complex region. Russia is reemerging from its post-Soviet economic crises and is actively looking for both economic opportunities in Central Asia as well as to secure its political influence over the region. China is rapidly expanding its economic power and political influence in the region. Iran, despite recent progress made by moderate elements in the government, is still a state sponsor of terrorism and is actively working to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many of the other former Soviet republics have become havens for religious extremists, terrorists, drug cartels and transit points for smugglers of all kind.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:10
In the center of this conflict and instability Kasakhstan has begun to prosper by working to build a modern economy, developing its vast natural resources and providing a base of stability in a very uncertain part of the world. With the discovery of the massive Kashagan oil field in the Kazak portion of the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan is poised to become a major supplier of petroleum to the Western World and a competitor to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is critical that we continue to facilitate western companies’ investment in Kazakhstan and the establishment of secure, east-west pipeline routes for Kazak oil. This is the only way for Kazakhstan to loosen its dependence on Russia for transit rights for its oil and gas and secure additional, much needed, oil for the world market.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:11
American policy in the region must be based on the complex geopolitics of Central Asia and provide the support required to enable these countries to reach their economic potential. We must continue to give top priority to the development of Kazakhstan’s oil and gas industries and to the establishment of east-west transportation corridors for Caspian oil and gas. We must also remain committed to real support for local political leadership, fostering rule of law and economic reforms and to helping mitigate and solve the lingering ethnic and nationalistic conflicts in the region. Only through meaningful and substantial cooperation with Kazakhstan, will we be able to realize these goals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 69:12
There are many challenges ahead for Kazakhstan, but there are enormous opportunities for economic and political progress. Mr. Nazarbayev has taken advantage of Kazakhstan’s stability to begin transforming its economy from the old Soviet form giant, state-owned industries and collective grain farms into a modern, market-based economy. We have much at stake in this development. Will Kazakhstan become a true market- oriented democracy, or will it slip into economic stagnation and ethnic violence like so many of its neighbor? The stability of Central Asia and the Caucasus depends on how Kazakhstan chooses to move forward. The United States must do its part to enhance U.S.-Kazakhstancooperation and encourage prosperity and stability for the entire region.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!TITLE:
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)
[Page: E1537] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Thursday, August 2, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:2
    * Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mamograms, are made by the senior, not by bureaucrats and politicians.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:3
    * One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:4
    * Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:5
      [Page: E1538] GPO’s PDF
      by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from the this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:6
    * Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 70:7
    * In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs by cosponsoring my legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)
[Page: E1540] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Thursday, August 2, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 71:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Truth in Employment Act which protects small businesses and independent-minded workers from the destructive and coercive “top-down” organizing tactic known as salting. Salting is a technique designed by unscrupulous union officials for the purpose of harassing small businesses until the businesses compel their employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 71:2
    * “Salts” are professional union organizers who apply for jobs solely in order to compel employers into consenting to union monopoly bargaining and forced-dues contract clauses. They do this by disrupting the workplace and drumming up so-called “unfair labor practice” charges which are designed to harass and tie up the small business person in constant and costly litigation.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 71:3
    * Thanks to unconstitutional interference in the nation’s labor markets by Congress, small businesses targeted by union salts often must acquiesce to union bosses’ demands that they force their workers to accept union “representation” and pay union dues. If an employer challenges a salt, the salt may file (and win) an unfair labor practice charge against the employer!



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 71:4
    * Passing the Truth in Employment Act is a good first step toward restoring the constitution rights of property and contract to employers and employees. I therefore urge my colleagues to stand up for those workers who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment by cosponsoring the Truth in Employment Act.




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 72:1
[Page: E1542] GPO’s PDF


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 72:2
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
Thursday, August 2, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:3
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. 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 also removes needless goverment barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:4
    * 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. 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.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:5
    * 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.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:6
    * 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 US or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:7
    * I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Just a few weeks ago, Congress responded to these demands by overwhelmingly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. While this provision took a good first step toward allowing free trade in pharmaceuticals, and I hope it remains in the final bill, the American people will not be satisfied until all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals are removed.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:8
    * The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:9
    * 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.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 72:10
    * 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 Prescription Drug Affordability Act.





2001 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
August 2, 2001

!TITLE:
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:2
   Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a physician. I practiced medicine for more than 30 years, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that medicine is a mess, managed care is not working very well; and, hopefully, we do something good to improve it. Unfortunately, I am not all that optimistic.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:3
   I support this rule because it is dealing with a very difficult subject and it brings the Democratic base bill to the floor. I do not see why we should not be able to amend that bill, so I do support the rule.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:4
   But the IRS code has 17,000 pages of regulation. The regulations that we as physicians have to put up with are 132,000 pages. Most everything I see that is happening today is we are going to increase those pages by many more thousands. So I am not optimistic that is going to do a whole lot of good.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:5
   I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:6
   We have a right in society, in a free society, to our life and our liberty, and we have a right to use that liberty to pursue our happiness and provide for our own well-being. We do not have a right to medical care. One has no more right to a service than one has a right to go into someone else’s garage and steal an automobile. So the definition of “rights” has been abused for 30 years, but the current understanding is that people have a right to services. So I think that is a serious flaw and it has contributed to our problem today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 73:7
   The other serious flaw that we have engaged in now for 30 years is the dictation of contract. For 30 years now under ERISA and tax laws, we have forced upon the American people a medical system where we dictate all the rules and regulations on the contracts; and it causes nothing but harm and confusion. Today’s effort is trying to clear this up; and, unfortunately, it is not going to do much good.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Patients’ Bill Of Rights

!DATE:
2 August 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:2
The proper way to examine health care issues is to apply the same economic and constitutional principles that one would apply to every other issue. As an M.D., I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting in the role as legislator and politician.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:3
The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is through the free market. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the health care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:4
The fundamental economic principle is that true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. This principle applies equally to health care as it does to other goods and services. However, over the past fifty years, Congress has systematically destroyed the market in health care. HMOs themselves are the result of conscious government policy aimed at correcting distortions in the health care market caused by Congress. The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:5
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:7
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion of organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor to much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:10
Disregard for constitutional limitations on government, ignorance of the basic principles of economics combined with the power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed-care monster. If we pursue a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will not be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actually is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:11
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:13
Of course, the real power over health care will lie with the unelected bureaucrats who will implement and interpret these broad and vague mandates. Federal bureaucrats already have too much power over health care. Today, physicians struggle with over 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations. To put that in perspective, I ask my colleagues to consider that the IRS code is “mere” 17,000 pages. Many physicians pay attorneys as much as $7,000 for a compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms, a wise investment considering even an innocent mistake can result in fines of up to $25,000. In case doctors are not terrorized enough by the federal bureaucracy, HCFA has requested authority to carry guns on their audits!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:14
In addition to the Medicare regulations, doctors must contend with FDA regulations (which delay the arrival and raise the costs of new drugs), insurance company paperwork, and the increasing criminalization of medicine through legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPPA) and the medical privacy regulations which could criminalize conversations between doctors and nurses.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:17
Congress should also remove all federallyimposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:18
While none of the proposed “Patients’ Bill of Rights” addresses the root cause of the problems in our nation’s health care system, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does expend individual control over health care by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) available to everyone. This is the most important thing Congress can do to get market forces operating immediately and improve health care. When MSAs make patient motivation to save and shop a major force to reduce cost, physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at the maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:19
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 6, 2001

!TITLE:
The US Dollar and the World Economy



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:1
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar by making only gold and silver legal tender and not to “emit bills of credit.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:2
This responsibility was performed relatively well in the 19 th Century, despite the abuse the dollar suffered during the Civil War and despite repeated efforts to form a central bank. This policy served to maintain relatively stable prices, and the shortcomings came only when the rules of the gold standard were ignored or abused.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:3
In the 20 th Century, however we saw the systematic undermining of sound money, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and the outright rejection of gold, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:4
We are now witnessing the effects of the accumulated problems of thirty years of fiat money-not only the dollar but also all the world currencies-something the world has never before experienced. Exactly how it plays out is yet unknown. Its severity will be determined by future monetary management- especially by the Federal Reserve. The likelihood of quickly resolving the deeply ingrained and worldwide imbalances built up over thirty years is remote. Yielding to the addiction of credit creation (as has been the case with every market correction over the past thirty years) remains irresistible to the central bankers of the world. Central planners, who occupy the seats of power in every central bank around the world, refuse to accept the fact that markets are more powerful and smarter than they are.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:5
The people of the United States, including the US Congress, are far too complacent about the seriousness of the current economic crisis. They remain oblivious to the significance of the US dollar’s fiat status. Discussions about the dollar are usually limited to the question of whether the dollar is now too strong or too weak. When money is defined as a precise weight of a precious metal, this type of discussion doesn’t exist. The only thing that matters under that circumstance is whether an honest government will maintain convertibility.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:6
Exporters always want a weak dollar, importers a strong one. But no one demands a stable sound dollar, as they should. Manipulation of foreign trade through competitive currency devaluations has become commonplace and is used as a form of protectionism. This has been going on ever since the worldwide acceptance of fiat money thirty years ago. Although some short-term advantage may be gained for certain manufacturers and some countries by such currency manipulation, it only adds fuel to the economic and financial instability inherent in a system of paper money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:7
Paper money helps the strong and hurts the weak before it self-destructs and undermines international trade. The US dollar, with its reserve-currency status, provides a much greater benefit to American citizens than that which occurs in other countries that follow a similar monetary policy. It allows us to export our inflation by buying cheap goods from overseas, while our dollars are then lent back to us to finance our current account deficit. We further benefit from the confidence bestowed on the dollar by our being the economic and military powerhouse of the world, thus postponing the day of reckoning. This permits our extravagant living to last longer than would have otherwise occurred under a gold standard.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:8
Some may argue that a good deal like that shouldn’t be denied, but unfortunately the piper must eventually be paid. Inevitably the distortions, such as our current account deficit and foreign debt, will come to an end with more suffering than anyone has anticipated.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:9
The monetary inflation of the 1900s produced welcomed profits of $145 billion for the NASDAQ companies over the five years between 1996 and 2000. Astoundingly this entire amount was lost in the past year. This doesn’t even address the trillions of dollars of paper losses in stock values from its peak in early 2000. Congress has expressed concern about the staggering stock-market losses but fails to see the connection between the bubble economy and the monetary inflation generated by the Federal Reserve.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:10
Instead, Congress chooses to blame the analysts for misleading investors . The analysts may not be entirely blameless , but their role in creating the bubble is minimal compared to the misleading information that the Federal Reserve has provided, with artificially low interest rates and a financial market made flush with generous new credit at every sign of a correction over the past ten years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:11
By preventing the liquidation of bad debt and the elimination of mal-investment and overcapacity, the Federal Reserve’s actions have kept the financial bubble inflated. Of course it’s an easy choice on the short run. Who would deliberately allow the market tendency to deflate back to stability? That would be politically unacceptable.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:12
Talk of sound money and balanced budgets is just that. When the economy sinks, the rhetoric for sound policy and a strong dollar may continue but all actions by the Congress and the Fed will be directed toward re-inflation and a congressional spending policy oblivious to all the promises regarding a balanced budget and the preservation of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:13
But if the Fed and its chairman, Alan Greenspan, have been able to guide us out of every potential crisis all the way back to the stock market crash of 1987, why shouldn’t we expect the same to happen once again? Mainly because there’s a limit to how long the monetary charade can be perpetuated. Now it looks like the international financial system built on paper money is coming to an end.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:14
Modern-day globalism, since gold’s demise thirty years ago, has been based on a purely fiat US dollar, with all other currencies tied to the dollar. International redistribution and management of wealth through the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO have promoted this new version of globalism. This type of globalism depends on trusting central bankers to maintain currency values and the international institutions to manage trade equitably, while bailing out weak economies with dollar inflation. This, of course, has only been possible because the dollar strength is perceived to be greater than it really is.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:15
Modern-day globalists would like us to believe they invented globalism. Yet all they are offering is an unprecedented plan for global power to be placed in the hands of a few powerful special interests.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:16
Globalism has existed ever since international trade started thousands of years ago. Whether it was during the Byzantine Empire or the more recent British Empire, it worked rather well when the goal was honest trade and the currency was gold. Today, however, world government is the goal. Its tools are fiat money and international agencies that believe they can plan globally, just as many others over the centuries believed they could plan domestically, ignoring the fact that all efforts at socialism have failed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:17
The day of reckoning for all this mischief is now at hand. The dollar is weakening, in spite of all the arguments for its continued strength. Economic law is overruling political edicts. Just how long will the US dollar and the US taxpayer be able to bail out every failed third-world economy and pay the bills for policing the world with US troops now in 140 nations around the world? The answer is certainly not forever and probably not much longer, since the world economies are readjusting to the dislocations of the past thirty years of mismanagement and misallocation of capital, characteristic of fiat money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:18
Fiat money has been around for a long time off and on throughout history. But never has the world been so enthralled with the world economy being artificially structured with paper money and with a total rejection of the anchor that gold provided for thousands of years. Let there be no doubt, we live in unprecedented times, and we are just beginning to reap what has been sown the past thirty years. Our government and Federal Reserve officials have grossly underestimated this danger.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:19
Current concerns are expressed by worries about meeting the criteria for a government-declared recession and whether a weaker dollar would help. The first is merely academic, because if you are one of the many thousands who have been laid off, you’re already in a recession. The second doesn’t make a lot of sense unless one asks “compared to what?” The dollar has been on a steady course of devaluation for thirty years, against most major currencies and against gold. Its purchasing power in general has been steadily eroded. The fact that the dollar has been strong against third-world currencies and against most major currencies for the past decade doesn’t cancel out the fact that the Federal Reserve has systematically eroded the dollar’s value by steadily expanding the money supply. Recent reports of a weakening dollar on international exchange markets have investment implications but do not reflect a new policy designed to weaken the dollar. This is merely the market adjusting to thirty years of systematic monetary inflation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:20
Regardless of whether the experts demand a weak dollar or a strong dollar, each inevitably demands lower interest rates, hoping to spur the economy and save the stock market from crashing. But one must remember that the only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is to inflate the currency by increasing the money supply and by further debasing the currency. In the long term, the dollar is always weakened, even if the economy is occasionally stimulated on a short-run basis.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:21
Economic growth can hide the ill effects of monetary inflation by holding some prices in check. But it can’t prevent the over-capacity and mal-investment which causes the economic downturn. Of course, the central bankers cling to the belief that they can somehow prevent the ugly corrections known as recessions. Economic growth, when artificially stimulated by monetary growth and low interest rates, generates the speculation we’ve seen in the stock, bond and real estate markets, along with excessive debt. Once the need for rectifying the over-capacity is recognized by the market, these imbalances are destined to be wiped out. Prolonging the correction phase with the Fed’s efforts to re-inflate by diligently working for a soft landing, or even to prevent a recession, only postpones the day the economy can return to sustained growth. This is a problem the United States had in the 1930s and one that Japan has experienced for more than a decade, with no end in sight.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:22
The next recession, from which I’m sure we’re already suffering, will be even more pervasive worldwide than the one in the 1930s due to the artificial nature of modern globalism, with world paper money and international agencies deeply involved in the economy of every nation. We have witnessed the current and recent bailouts in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and the Far East. While resisting the market’s tendency for correction, faith in government deficits and belief in paper money inflation will surely prolong the coming worldwide crisis.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:23
Alan Greenspan made a concerted effort to stave off the 1991-1992 recession with numerous reductions in the Fed funds rate to no avail. The recession hit, and most people believe it led to George Bush’s defeat in the 1992 election. It wasn’t that Greenspan didn’t try, and in many ways the Bush people’s criticism of Greenspan’s effort is not justified. Greenspan, the politician, would have liked to please the elder Bush, but was unable to control events as he had wished. This time around, however, he’s been much more aggressive with the half-point cuts along with seven cuts in just eight months, for a total of a three-point cut in the Fed funds rate. But guess what? So far it hasn’t helped. Stocks continue to slide, and the economy is still in the doldrums. It is now safe to say that Greenspan is pushing on a string. In the year 2000, bank loans and commercial paper were growing at an annualized rate of 23%. In less than a year, in spite of this massive influx of new credit, these loans have crashed to a rate of minus 5%.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:24
But where is the money going? Some of it probably has helped to prop up the staggering stock market, but that can’t last forever. Plenty went into consumption and to finance extravagant living.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:25
The special nature of the dollar, as the reserve currency of the world, has permitted the bubble to last longer and to be especially beneficial to American consumers. But in the meantime, understandable market and political forces have steadily eroded our industrial base, while our service sector has thrived. Consumers enjoyed having even more funds to spend as the dollars left manufacturing. In a little over a year, one million industrial production jobs were lost while saving rates sank to zero and capital investments plummeted. Foreigners continue to grab our dollars, permitting us to raise our standard of living, but unfortunately it’s built on endless printing of fiat money and self -limiting personal debt.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:26
The Federal Reserve credit created during the last eight months has not stimulated economic growth in technology or the industrial sector, but a lot of it ended up in the expanding real-estate bubble, churned by the $3.2 trillion of debt maintained by the GSEs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:27
The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:28
In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:29
After the NASDAQ collapsed last year, the flow of funds into real estate accelerated. The GSEs accommodated by borrowing without restraint to subsidize new mortgages, record sales and refinancing. It’s no wonder the price of houses are rising to record levels.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:30
Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese “miracle” of the 1980s going forever.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:31
Concerned Federal Reserve economists are struggling to understand how the wealth effect of the stock market and real estate bubble affect economic activity and consumer spending. It should be no mystery, but it would be too much to expect the Fed to look to itself and its monetary policy for an explanation and assume responsibility for engineering the entire financial mess we’re in.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:32
A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury’s and the Fed’s attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:33
The weakening dollar will usher in an age of challenge to the whole worldwide financial system. The dollar has been the linchpin of economic activity, and a severe downturn in its value will not go unnoticed and will compound the already weakening economies of the world. More monetary inflation, even if it’s a concerted worldwide effort, cannot solve the approaching crisis. The coming crisis will result from fiat money and monetary inflation; therefore, more of the same cannot be the solution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:34
Pseudo-free trade, managed poorly and driven by fiat money, is no substitute for true free trade in a world with a stable commodity currency, such as gold. Managed trade and fiat money, historically, have led to trade wars, which the international planners pretend to abhor. Yet the trade war is already gearing up. The WTO, purported to exist to lower tariffs, is actually the agency that grants permission for tariffs to be applied when complaints of dumping are levied. We are in the midst of banana, textile, steel, lumber, and tax wars, all managed by the WTO. When cheap imports hit our markets, it’s a good deal for consumers, but our manufacturers are the first to demand permission to place protective tariffs on imports. If this is already occurring in an economy that has been doing quite well, one can imagine how strong the protectionists’ sentiments will be in a worldwide slowdown.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:35
Congress is starting to realize that the budget forecast based on an overly optimistic growth rate of 3% is way off target, and even the pseudo-surpluses are soon to be eliminated. Remember the national debt never went down with the “surpluses.” The national debt is currently rising at more than $120 billion at an annualized rate and is destined to get worse.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:36
Our dollar problem, which affects our financial and budgetary decisions, originated at the Fed with our country’s acceptance of paper money thirty years ago. Federal Reserve officials and other government leaders purposely continue to mislead the people by spouting the nonsense that there is no evidence of inflation, as measured by government-rigged price indices. Even though significant price increases need not exist for monetary inflation to place a hardship on the economy, stock prices, housing prices, costs of medical care and education, and the cost of government have all been rising at very rapid rates. But the true inflation, measured by the money supply, is rising at a rate of greater than 20%, as measured by MZM. This fact is ignored.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:37
The deception regarding price increases is supposed to reassure us and may do so for a while. The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:38
Serious problems lie ahead. If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:39
The current problems, hopefully, will cause us as a nation and, in particular, Congress to reassess the policies that have allowed the imbalances to develop over the last thirty years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:40
Someday, stable money based on the gold standard must be reconsidered. Stable money is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. The Federal Reserve Board’s goal of stable prices, economic growth and low interest rates, through centralized economic planning by manipulating money and credit, is a concoction of 20 th Century Keynesian economics. These efforts are not authorized by the Constitution, and are economically detrimental.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:41
Economic adjustments wouldn’t be so bad, as many mild recessions have proven, except that wealth is inexorably and unfairly transferred from middle class and poor to the rich. Job losses and the rising cost of living hurt some more than others. If our course is not changed, the entire middle-class prosperity can be endangered, as has happened all too often in other societies that pursued a false belief that paper money could be satisfactorily managed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:42
Even the serious economic problems generated by a flawed monetary system could be tolerated, except for the inevitable loss of personal liberty that accompanies government’s efforts to centrally plan the economy through a paper monetary policy and ever-growing welfare state.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:43
Likewise, an imperialistic foreign policy can only be supported by inflation and high taxation. This policy compounds the threat to liberty, because all too often our leaders get us involved in overseas military adventurism in which we should have no part. Today that danger is greater than ever before, as we send our dollars and troops hither and yon to areas of the world most Americans have no knowledge or interest in. But the driving force behind our foreign policy comes from our oil corporations, international banking interests and the military-industrial complex, which have high-stake interests in the places our troops and foreign aid, are sent.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:44
If, heaven forbid, the economy sinks as low and for as long as many free market economists believe, what policy changes must we consider? Certainly the number one change ought to be to reject the ideas that created the crisis. But rejecting old ways that Congress and the people are addicted to is not easy. Many people believe that government programs are free. The clamor for low interest rates, (more monetary inflation) by virtually all public officials and prominent business and banking leaders is endless. And, the expectation for government to do something for every economic malady-even if ill-advised government policy has created the problem-drives this seductive system of centralized planning that ultimately undermines prosperity. A realization that we cannot continue our old ways may well be upon us, and, the inflating, taxing, regulating, and centralized planning programs of the last thirty years must come to an end.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:46
But we must also reject the notion that one man, Alan Greenspan, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be- only the market can determine that. This must happen if we ever expect to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. It also must happen if we want to preserve free-market capitalism and personal liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:47
The longer the delay in establishing a free market and a commodity currency, even with interrupted blips of growth, the more unstable the economy and the moredifficult the task becomes. Instead it will result in what no one wants- more poverty and political turmoil.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:48
There are no other options if we hope to remain a free and prosperous nation. Economic and monetary meddling undermines the principles of a free society. A free society and sound money maximize production and minimize poverty. The responsibility of Congress is clear: avoid the meddling so engrained in our system and assume the responsibility, all but forgotten, to maintain a free society while making the dollar once again as good as gold.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:49
In the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers :


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 75:50
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Defense Production Act

!DATE:
10 September 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 10, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, when the Defense Production Act was enacted in 1950, considerable damage was done. Some of the worst damage occurred as a result of wage and price controls and the improper delegation of economic powers to the President (much of which economic power even Congress itself didn’t have).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 76:2
This bill’s entire existence rests on the presumption that its supporters have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in either freedom or the market process. In a time of crisis, you don’t need an “industrial policy” and you don’t need some fascist or corporatist variety of socialism. What one needs more than ever in a time of crisis is the market — deviation from the market process is the worst thing an economy can do. Oftentimes, it’s the “industrial policy” which is the very cause of the economic crisis one hopes to remedy with yet another round of “industrial policy” intervention.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 76:3
We have an energy crisis in California created by the bureaucrats and the politicians. As prices skyrocket and a crisis is declared, it is later said that prices are now down and there’s less of a shortage or crisis. But it’s the market process that worked because the prices skyrocketed rather than skyrocketing prices becoming the justification for abandoning the market process.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 76:4
Of course, if one likes socialism and rejects the notion that freedom works, this type of an Act and improper of delegating and centralizing such powers is ideal. But why accept the notions of socialism when you really need an economy to provide products and services in the nation’s time of most dire need? This whole notion that the powers in this bill should be illegitimately granted to a President and then turned over to the head of FEMA is potentially one of the most dangerous things this body will ever do (or continue doing).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 76:5
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the members of this body to begin thinking about the amount of false hope they place in the centralization of power in the hands of a central-planners and reconsider their apparent lack of confidence in the market process and a free society. I encourage a strict adherence to market principles and strongly oppose H.R. 2510.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback

!DATE:
10 September 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 10, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I encourage each and every one of my colleagues to read and heed the insights contained in James Grant’s Sunday New York Times article entitled “Sometimes the Economy Needs a Setback.” Mr. Grant explores the relationship of technology to the business cycle and identifies the real culprit in business cycles, namely “easy money.” Grant explains:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:2
Booms not only precede busts; they also cause them. When capital is so cheap that it might as well be free, entrepreneurs make marginal investments. They build and hire expecting the good times to continue to roll. Optimistic bankers and steadily rising stock prices shield new businesses from having to show profits any sooner than “eventually.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:3
Those genuinely interested in understanding the most recent economic downturn will do well to read and contemplate Mr. Grant’s article.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:4
[From the New York Times, Sept. 9, 2001]
SOMETIMES THE ECONOMY NEEDS A SETBACK
(By James Grant)



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:5
The weak economy and the multi-trilliondollar drop in the value of stocks have raised a rash of recrimination. Never a people to suffer the loss of money in silence, Americans are demanding to know what happened to them. The truth is simple: There was a boom.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:6
A boom is a phase of accelerated prosperity. For ignition, it requires easy money. For inspiration, it draws on new technology. A decade ago, farsighted investors saw a glorious future for the personal computer in the context of the more peaceful world after the cold war. Stock prices began to rise — and rose and rose. The cost of financing new investment fell correspondingly, until by about the middle of the decade the money became too cheap to pass up. Business investment soared, employment rose, reported profits climbed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:7
Booms begin in reality and rise to fantasy. Stock investors seemed to forget that more capital spending means more competition, not less; that more competition implies lower profit margins, not higher ones; and that lower profit margins do not point to rising stock prices. It seemed to slip their minds that high-technology companies work ceaselessly to make their own products obsolete, not just those of their competitors — that they are inherently self-destructive.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:8
At the 2000 peak of the titanic bull market, as shares in companies with no visible means of support commanded high prices, the value of all stocks as a percentage of the American gross domestic product reached 183 percent, more than twice the level before the crash in 1929. Were investors out of their minds? Wall Street analysts were happy to reassure them on this point: No, they were the privileged financiers of the new economy. Digital communications were like the wheel or gunpowder or the internal combustion engine, only better. The Internet would revolutionize the conveyance of human thought. To quibble about the valuation of companies as potentially transforming as any listed on the Nasdaq stock market was seen almost as an act of ingratitude. The same went for questioning the integrity of the companies’ reports of lush profits.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:9
In markets all things are cyclical, even the idea that markets are not cyclical. The notion that the millennial economy was in some way “new” was an early portent of confusion. Since the dawn of the industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and driving the pace of economic change. In 1850, as the telegraph was beginning to anticipate the Internet, about 65 percent of the American labor force worked on farms. In 2000, only 2.4 percent did. The prolonged migration of hands and minds from the field to the factor, office and classroom is all productivity growth — the same phenomenon the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board rhapsodizes over. It’s true, just as Alan Greenspan says, that technological progress is the bulwark of the modern economy. Then again, it has been true for most of the past 200 years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:10
In 1932 an eminent German analyst of business cycles, Wilhelm Ro¨pke, looked back from amid the debris of the Depression. Citing a series of inventions and innovations — railroads, steelmaking, electricity, chemical production, the automobile — he wrote: “The jumpy increases in investment characterizing every boom are usually connected with some technological advance. * * * Our economic system reacts to the stimulus. * * * with the prompt and complete mobilization of all its inner forces in order to carry it out everywhere in the shortest possible time. But this acceleration and concentration has evidently to be bought at the expense of a disturbance of equilibrium which is slowly overcome in time of depression.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:11
Röpke, wrote before the 1946 Employment Act, which directed the United States government to cut recessions short — using tax breaks, for example, or cuts in interest rates — even if these actions stymie a salutary process of economic adjustment. No one doubts the humanity of this law. Yet equally, no one can doubt the inhumanity of a decade-long string a palliatives in Japan, intended to insulate the Japanese people from the consequences of their bubble economy of the 1980’s. Rather than suppressing the bust, the government has only managed to prolong it, for a decade and counting.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:12
Booms not only precede busts; they also cause them. When capital is so cheap that it might as well be free, entrepreneurs make marginal investments. They build and hire expecting the good times to continue to roll. Optimistic bankers and steadily rising stock prices shield new businesses from having to show profits any sooner than “eventually.” Then, when the stars change alignment and investors decide to withhold new financing, many companies are cash-poor and must retrench or shut down. It is the work of a bear market to reduce the prices of the white elephants until they are cheap enough to interest a new class of buyers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:13
The boom-and-bust pattern has characterized the United States economy since before the railroads. Growth has been two steps forward and one step back, cycle by cycle. Headlong building has been followed by necessary tearing down, which has been followed by another lusty round of building. Observing this sequence from across the seas, foreigners just shake their heads.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:14
Less and less, however, are we bold and irrepressible Americans willing to suffer the tearing-down phase of the cycle. After all, it has seemed increasingly unnecessary. With a rising incidence of federal intervention in financial markets, expansions have become longer and contractions shorter. And year in and year out, the United States is allowed to consume more of the world’s goods than it produces (the difference being approximately defined as the trade deficit, running in excess of $400 billion a year).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:15
We have listened respectfully as our financial elder statesmen have speculated on the likelihood that digital technology has permanently reduced the level of uncertainty in our commercial life — never mind that last year the information technology industries had no inkling that the demand for their products was beginning to undergo a very old-fashioned collapse.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:16
Even moderate expansions produce their share of misconceived investments, and the 90’s boom, the gaudiest on record, was no exception. In the upswing, faith in the American financial leaders bordered on idolatry. Now there is disillusionment. Investors are right to resent Wall Street for its conflicts of interest and to upbraid Alan Greenspan for his wide-eyed embrace of the so-called productivity miracle. But the underlying source of recurring cycles in any economy is the average human being.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:17
The financial historian Max Winkler concluded his tale of the fantastic career of the swindler-financier Ivar Kreguer, the “Swedish match king,” with the ancient epigram “Mundus vult decipi; ergo decipiatur”: The world wants to be deceived; let it therefore be deceived. The Romans might have added, for financial context, that the world is most credulous during bull markets. Prosperity makes it gullible.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 77:18
James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 12, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:1
    Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:2
    Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:3
    In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:4
    If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:5
    In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress’ foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:6
    When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:7
    Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:8
    It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves. 

!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 78:9
    We must all pray for peace and ask for God’s guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America- and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 14, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr, Speaker, Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:2
To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:3
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:4
There are a couple of serious points I’d like to make.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:5
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:6
It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:7
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:8
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:9
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:10
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 79:11
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
September 25, 2001

!TITLE:
Foreign Interventionism



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:1
Ron Paul speech in the House of Representatives


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:2
Mr. Speaker:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:3
Last week was a bad week for all Americans. The best we can say is that the events have rallied the American spirit of shared love and generosity. Partisanship was put on hold, as it well should have been. We now, as a free people, must deal with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and prevention is mandatory. We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at the hand of an irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to restore normalcy is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy not yet identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:4
Mr. Speaker, I returned to Congress 5 years ago out of deep concern about our foreign policy of international interventionism, and a monetary and fiscal policy I believed would lead to a financial and dollar crisis. Over the past 5 years I have frequently expressed my views on these issues and why I believed our policies should be changed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:5
This deep concern prompted me to seek and receive seats on the Financial Services and International Relations Committees. I sought to thwart some of the dangers I saw coming, but as the horrific attacks show, these efforts were to no avail. As concerned as I was, the enormity of the two-prong crisis that we now face came with a ferocity no one ever wanted to imagine. But now we must deal with what we have and do our best to restore our country to a more normal status.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:6
I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent non-combatants and further radicalizing Muslim peoples.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:7
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence led to our neglect of these responsibilities.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:8
Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:9
Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not other western countries.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:10
In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion that war is most often fought for economic reasons. But economic wars are driven by moral and emotional overtones.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:11
Our own revolution was fought to escape from excessive taxation but was inspired and driven by our desire to protect our God-given right to liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:12
The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:13
Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealously.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:14
It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a “holy war”- a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic issues since they have no regard even for their own lives. But an economic issue does exist in this war: OIL!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:15
When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated: “This is the beginning of the war for oil.” Our crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:16
Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join American- sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He received financial assistance, weapons and training from our CIA, just as his allies in Kosovo continue to receive the same from us today.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:17
Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never have started it in the first place.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:18
It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn’t until 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst in him.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:19
Of course, it isn’t our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:20
Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:21
The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the USS Cole was a warning we ignored.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:22
Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab countries is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region than they want. There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long lasting Middle East conflict add to the distrust and hatred of America.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:23
The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And now the innocent suffer.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:24
I am hopeful that shedding light on the truth will be helpful in resolving this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. Without some understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf we cannot expect to punish the evildoers without expanding the nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:25
Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we don’t understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals. Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we all desire.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:26
We did a poor job in providing the security that all Americans should expect. This is our foremost responsibility. Some members have been quick to point out the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA and the FAA and claim more money will rectify the situation. I’m not so sure. Bureaucracies by nature are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely provides timely intelligence. The FAA’s idea of security against hijackers is asking all passengers who packed their bag.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:27
The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. But, remember, important industries like as our chemical plants and refineries do not depend on government agencies for security. They build fences and hire guards with guns. The airlines have not been allowed to do the same thing. There was a time when airline pilots were allowed and did carry weapons, and yet this has been prohibited by government regulation set to go into effect in November.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:28
If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:29
We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have taken for granted for so long. But it can be done. Destroying the evildoers while extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no small challenge. The job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled with venomous snakes. The sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately threaten us, the sooner we can get safely away. If we’re not careful though, we’ll breed more snakes and they’ll come out of every nook and cranny from around the world and little will be resolved.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:30
It’s no easy task, but before we fight we’d better be precise about whom we are fighting and how many there are and where they are hiding, or we’ll never know when the war is over and our goals are achieved. Without this knowledge the war can go on for a long, long time, and the war for oil has already been going on for more than 20 years. To this point, our President and his administration have displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a positive change from unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in past years that only worsened various conflicts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:31
If we can’t or won’t define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:33
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president’s other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:34
Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented. Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an unseen target. “Marque and reprisal” demands the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered and, for various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:35
We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:36
As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many years ago, tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient military.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:37
Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned the motives.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:38
The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone’s personal liberty. This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other information obtained with probable cause and a warrant.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:39
The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great danger to our way of life and will provide little help in dealing with our enemies. Efforts of this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect on a would-be terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just to do something- even something harmful.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:40
Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in the pursuit of our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable. No doubt others recognize the difficulty in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind “marque and reprisal” must be given serious consideration.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:41
In retaliation, an unintended consequence of a policy of wanton destruction without benefit to our cause, could result in the overthrow of moderate Arab nations by the radicals that support bin Laden. This will not serve our interests and will surely exacerbate the threat to all Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:42
As we search for a solution to the mess we’re in, it behooves us to look at how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Personally, that crisis led to a 5-year tour in the US Air Force for me.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:43
As horrible and dangerous as the present crisis is, those of us that held our breath during some very tense moments that October realized that we were on the brink of a world-wide nuclear holocaust. That crisis represented the greatest potential danger to the world in all of human history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:44
President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the Soviets as he should have and the confrontation was resolved. What was not known at the time was the reassessment of our policy that placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet’s back yard, in Turkey. These missiles were quietly removed a few months later and the world became a safer place in which to live. Eventually, we won the cold war without starting World War III.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:45
Our enemy today, as formidable as he is, cannot compare to the armed might of the Soviet Union in the fall of 1962.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:46
Wisdom and caution on Kennedy’s part in dealing with the crisis was indeed “a profile in courage.” But his courage was not only in his standing up to the Soviets, but his willingness to re-examine our nuclear missile presence in Turkey, which if it had been known at the time would have been condemned as an act of cowardice.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:47
President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally courageous and wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a catastrophic World War III. When the President asks for patience as he and his advisors deliberate, seeking a course of action, all Americans should surely heed his request.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:48
Mr. Speaker, I support President Bush and voted for the authority and the money to carry out his responsibility to defend this country, but the degree of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be carefully taken into consideration.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:49
It is only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the dollars, the troops, the weapons and training provided by US taxpayers that are now being used against us. Logic should tell us that intervening in all the wars of the world has been detrimental to our self-interest and should be reconsidered.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:50
The efforts of a small minority in Congress to avoid this confrontation by voting for the foreign policy of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and all the 19 th century presidents went unheeded. The unwise policy of supporting so many militants who later became our armed enemies makes little sense whether it’s bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. A policy designed to protect America is wise and frugal and hopefully it will once again be considered. George Washington, as we all know, advised strongly, as he departed his presidency, that we should avoid all entangling alliances with foreign nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:51
The call for a non-interventionist foreign policy over past years has fallen on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today may meet the same fate. Yet, if truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. In that case something will be lost. But, if something is said to be true and it is not and is ignored, nothing is lost. My goal is to contribute to the truth and to the security of this nation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 80:52
What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our history or our constitution. It’s a policy that has, whenever tried, generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that light.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002

!DATE:
5 October 2001
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 5, 2001


The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill. (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, HR 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act, is brought before us today under a process which denies members of Congress our constitutional right as elected officials to be informed on crucial aspects of the programs we are asked to authorize. Information about this bill is limited to dollars amounts and personnel ceilings for the individual intelligence programs and even that information is restricted to viewing in a classified annex available to members during regular business hours for “security reasons.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 81:2
Given the many questions the American people have about the performance of the intelligence agencies prior to September 11, and the many concerns as to whether the intelligence agencies can effectively respond to the challenges of international terrorism, I believe that the American people would be well served by a full debate on the ways the intelligence community plans to respond to these challenges. I also believe the American people would be well-served if members of Congress could debate the prudence of activities authorized under this bill, such as using taxpayer monies for drug interdiction, is an efficient use of intelligence resources or if those resources could be better used to counter other, more significant threats. Perhaps the money targeted for drug interdiction and whether it should be directed to anti-terrorism efforts. However, Mr. Speaker, such a debate cannot occur when members are denied crucial facts regarding the programs authorized in this bill or, at a minimum, are not free to debate in an open forum. Therefore, Congress is denied a crucial opportunity to consider how we might improve America’s intelligence programs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 81:3
We are told that information about this bill must be limited to a select few for “security reasons.” However, there are other ways to handle legitimate security concerns than by limiting the information to those members who happen to sit on the Intelligence Committee. If any member were to reveal information that may compromise the security of the United States, I certainly would support efforts to punish that member for violating his office and the trust of his country. I believe that if Congress and the Executive Branch exercised sufficient political will to make it known that any member who dared reveal damaging information would suffer full punishment of the law, there would not be a serious risk of a member leaking classified information.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 81:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for members to be denied crucial facts regarding the intelligence program authorized by this bill, especially at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on security issues. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will reject HR 2883 and all other intelligence authorization or funding bills until every member of Congress is allowed to fully perform their constitutional role of overseeing these agencies and participating in the debate on this vital aspect of America’s national security policy.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 9, 2001

!TITLE:
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:1
The CIA has a budget of over $30 billion. The FBI has a budget of $3 billion. In addition, $10 to $12 billion are specifically designated to fight terrorism. Yet, with all this money and power, we were not warned of the events that befell us on September 11th.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:2
Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ringleaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against the terrorists, or guerillas if one really believes we’re in an actual war, has so far been carried out satisfactorily, and under current law. The question is, do we really need a war against the civil liberties of the American people? We should never casually sacrifice any of our freedoms for the sake of perceived security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:3
Most security, especially in a free society, is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and their own lives. The Founders certainly understood this and is the main reason we have the Second amendment. We cannot have a policeman stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners of property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency for Homeland Security cannot provide security but it can severely undermine our liberties. This approach may well in the long run make many American feel less secure.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:4
The principle of private property ownership did not work to prevent the tragedies of September 11th, and there’s a reason for that. The cries have gone out that due to the failure of the airlines to protect us, we must nationalize every aspect of aviation security. This reflects a serious error in judgment, and will lead us further away from the principle of property ownership and toward increasing government dependency and control, with further sacrifice of our freedoms. More dollars and more federal control over the airline industry are not likely to give us the security we all seek.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:5
Industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected, not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wired fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter-all this without any violation of anyone’s civil liberties. And in a free society, private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to engage in “profiling” if it enhances security. This technique of providing security through private property ownership is about to be rejected, in its entirety, for the airline industry.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:6
The problem was that the principle of private property was already undermined for the airlines by the partial federalization of security by FAA regulations. Airports are all owned by various government entities.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:7
The system that failed us prior to September 11th not only was strictly controlled by government regulations, it specifically denied the right of owners to defend their property with a gun. At one time guns were permitted on airlines to protect the US mail, but for more than 40 years airlines have not been allowed to protect human life with firearms.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:8
Some argue that pilots have enough to do worrying about flying the airplane and have no time to be concerned about a gun. Yet why do we allow drivers of armored vehicles to handle both? Why do we permit more protection for money being hauled around the country in a truck than we do for passengers on an airline? If government management of airline security has already failed us, why should we expect expanding the role of government in this area to be successful? One thing is for sure, we can expect it to get very expensive and the lines to get a lot longer. The government’s idea of security is asking, “Who packed your bag,” or “Has the bag been with you since you packed it?” and requiring plastic knives to be used on all flights while taking fingernail clippers from the pilots.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:9
Pilots overwhelmingly support their right to be armed, with some even threatening not to fly if they are not permitted to do so. This could be done quickly and cheaply by merely removing the prohibition against it, as my bill HR 2896 would do. We must not forget that four well-placed guns could have prevented the entire tragedy of September 11th.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:10
This is a crucial time in our history. Our policy of foreign interventionism has contributed to this international crisis. How we define our enemies will determine how long we fight and when the war is over. The expense will be worth it if we make the right decisions. Targeting the forces of bin Laden makes sense, but invading 8 to 10 countries without a precise goal will prove to be a policy of folly. Indefinite war, growing in size and cost in terms of dollars and lives, is something for which most Americans will eventually grow weary. Our prayers are with our president, and we hope that he continues to use wise judgment in accomplishing this difficult task- something that he has accomplished remarkably well under very difficult circumstances.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:11
But here at home it is surely a prime responsibility of all members of Congress to remain vigilant and not, out of fear and panic, sacrifice the rights of Americans in our effort to maximize security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 82:12
Since the President has already done a good job in locating, apprehending, and de-funding those associated with the September 11th attacks while using current existing laws, we should not further sacrifice our liberties with a vague promise of providing more security. We do not need a giant new national agency in order to impose a concept of homeland security that challenges our civil liberties. This is an idea whose time has not yet come.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Safe Act

!DATE:
9 October 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 9, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act makes commonsense changes to federal law that will enhance the government’s ability to prevent terrorist incidents. Unlike other proposals, my legislation in no way threatens the constitutional liberties of the American people. In fact, the only people threatened under the SAFE Act are terrorists.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:2
The SAFE Act repeals regulations preventing agencies who deal with terrorism from sharing information among themselves. Currently, there are limits on sharing data with policy makers and there is a nearly unanimous agreement on lifting these restrictions. Removing the restrictions on data sharing is a good step which provides more — not less — openness and governmnent transparency.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:3
Hard as it may be to believe, there are actually existing directives in the law enforcement and intelligence communities which grant suspects “extra-legal” rights. These “special” rights could, and should, be clarified without changing existing law. This is why the SAFE Act adopts several of the administration’s proposals to change the procedures regarding prosecutions of terrorism, such as eliminating the statute of limitations for terrorist offenses.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:4
Perhaps the most significant change made to procedures is codifying that probable cause is the maximum standard for an investigation of terrorism. According to information received by my office some federal agencies actually have to meet a higher standard than the constitutional standard of probable cause in order to launch an investigation of suspected terrorists. It is absurd to make the FBI meet a higher standard to initiate an investigation of a terrorist than to initiate an investigation of an insider trader!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:5
Finally, the SAFE Act drastically reduces immigration from countries on the State Department’s terrorist list and countries which refuse to provide assistance in the battle against terrorists. Whatever one’s feelings on other questions connected with immigration, I would hope we all could agree that the United States has an obligation to keep those who may be threats to the security of United States citizens outside the country. This is especially true considering that the programs I proposed limiting allow immigrants to take advance of taxpayer- funded educational programs and provide other special privileges for immigrants from terrorist countries. It is the height of absurdity to allow immigrants from countries involved in terrorist activities against American citizens special preferences denied to immigrants from America’s closest allies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:6
I would also hope that we could all agree that this is far preferable to systems of nationwide “surveillance,” which could threaten the liberty of all immigrants and eventually all citizens. This is an instance where the interests of liberty and security coincide entirely.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 83:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking these commonsense steps to protecting the liberty and the security of the American people from terrorists by cosponsoring the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 10, 2001

!TITLE:
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - October 10, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 10, 2001



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:1
    * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individual responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal are provided for in the Constitution as a means of allowing Congress to deal with aggressive actions where a formal declaration of war against a foreign power is problematic, Originally intended to deal with piracy, letters of marque and reprisal represent an appropriate response to the piracy of the twentieth century: hijacking terrorism.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:2
    * All of America stood horrified at the brutal attacks of September 11 and all of us stand united in our determination to exact just retribution on the perpetrators of this evil deed. This is why I supported giving the President broad authority to use military power to respond to these attacks. When Congress authorized the use of force to respond to the attacks of September 11 we recognized these attacks were not merely criminal acts but an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security.”



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:3
    * Congress must use every means available to fight the terrorists behind this attack if we are to fulfill our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense of our sovereign nation. Issuance of letters of marque and reprisal are a valuable tool in the struggle to exact just retribution on the perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In fact, they may be among the most effective response available to Congress.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:4
    * Since the bombing there has been much discussion of how to respond to warlike acts carried out by private parties. The drafters of the Constitution also had to wrestle with the problem of how to respond to sporadic attacks on American soil and citizens organized by groups not formally affiliated with a government. In order to deal with this situation, the Constitution authorized Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In the early days of the Republic, marque and reprisal were usually used against pirates who, while they may have enjoyed the protection and partnership of governments, where not official representatives of a government.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:5
    * Although modern America does not face the threat of piracy on the high seas, we do face the threat of international terrorism, Terrorism has much in common with the piracy of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups operating to assault the United States government as well as threaten the lives, liberty and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through terroristic violence.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:6
    * Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to punish using military means. While bombs and missiles may be sufficient to knock out the military capability and the economic and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors those who committed the September 11 attacks, traditional military force may not be suitable to destroy the lawless terrorists who are operating in the nations targeted for military force. Instead, those terrorists may simply move to another base before our troops can locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe that, were the drafters of the Constitution with us today, they would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for this outrageous act.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:7
    * Specifically, my legislation authorizes the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to all appropriate parties to capture Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda or any other persons involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The President is also authorized to use part of the $40 billion appropriated by this Congress to respond to the attack, to establish a bounty for the capture of Osama bin Laden. My legislation singles out Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda because the information available to Congress and the American people indicates bin Laden and his organization were responsible for this action. By vesting authority in the President to issue the letters, my legislation ensures that letters of marque and reprisal can be coordinated with the administration’s overall strategy to bring the perpetrators of this outrageous act to justice.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:8
    * Letters of marque and reprisal resolve one of the most vexing problems facing the country: how do we obtain retribution against the perpetrators of the attacks without inflicting massive damage on the Middle East which could drive moderate Arabs into an allegiance with bin Laden and other terrorists. This is because using letters of marque and reprisal shows the people of the region that we are serious when we say our quarrel is not with them but with Osama bin Laden and all others who would dare commit terrorist acts against the United States.



      !CITE:
      2001 Ron Paul 84:9
    * Mr, Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join with me in providing the additional “necessary weapon of war” and to help defend our fellow citizens, our sovereign nation, and our liberty by cosponsoring the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 and the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001.



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 85

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Sponsored The Amendment

!DATE:
11 October 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 85:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased that the amendment will be approved because I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
October 11, 2001

!TITLE:
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crackdown on white-collar crime.” Even a ban on Internet gambling has somehow made it into this “anti-terrorism” bill!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 86:3
Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill are: expanding the war on cash by creating a new federal crime of taking over $10,000 cash into or out of the United States; codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the “suspicious activity reports” mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an “unusual” pattern in their financial dealings.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 86:4
HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by authorizing warrantless searches of all mail coming into or leaving the country. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 12, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation’s citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti-terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:2
   There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counter-terrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:3
   Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:4
   However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people’s constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government’s power.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:5
   Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:6
   I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government’s ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as “asset forfeiture.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:7
   Among other disturbing proposals, H.R. 3108 grants the President the authority to seize all the property of any foreign national that the President determines is involved in hostilities against the United States. Giving the executive branch discretionary authority to seize private property without due process violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, given that one of the (unspoken) reasons behind the shameful internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the 1940s was to reward favored interests with property forcibly taken from innocent landowners, how confident are we that future, less scrupulous executives will refrain from using this power to reward political allies with the property of alleged “hostile nationals?”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:8
   H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment’s requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:9
   Many of the questionable provisions in this bill, such as the expanded pen register authority and the expanded use of roving wiretaps, are items for which law enforcement has been lobbying for years. The utility of these items in catching terrorists is questionable to say the least. After all, terrorists have demonstrated they are smart enough not to reveal information about their plans when they know federal agents could be listening.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:10
   This legislation is also objectionable because it adopts a lower standard than probable cause for receiving e-mails and Internet communications. While it is claimed that this is the same standard used to discover numbers dialed by a phone, it is also true that even the headings on e-mails or the names of web sites one visits can reveal greater amounts of personal information than can a mere telephone number. I wonder how my colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.” I also doubt the relevance of this provision to terrorist investigation, as it seems unlikely that terrorists would rely on e-mail or the Internet to communicate among themselves.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:11
   Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions “sunsetting” some of the government’s new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for “unauthorized” disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for “sunsetting,” I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government’s ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American’s constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:12
   As Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureaucracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:13
   H.R. 3108 may actually reduce security as private cities may not take necessary measures to protect their safety because “the government is taking care of our security.” In a free market, private owners have great incentives to protect their private property and the lives of their customers. That is why industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of anyone’s civil liberties. In a free society private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to “profile” if it enhances security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:14
   The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 87:15
   In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government’s powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common-sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 17, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on HR 3004



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 88:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crack down on white-collar crime.” For example, this bill facilitates efforts to bully low tax jurisdictions into raising taxes to levels approved by the tax-loving, global bureaucrats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 88:3
Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill: codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the “suspicious activity reports” mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an “unusual” pattern in their financial dealings.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
October 17, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:1
MR PAUL: Mr. Chairman: It is an honor to have Secretary of State Colin Powell here to brief the committee on the progress of the war on terrorism. I strongly support the administration’s efforts to seek out and punish those who attacked the United States on 9/11 and those who supported and assisted them. I fully recognize the difficult challenges inherent in this effort, and that no real solution will be easily attained. With that said, I must admit that several of the secretary’s points have troubled me.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:2
Secretary Powell has stated that “our fight does not end with the al-Qaida and the Taliban regime,” going on to quote President Bush, that “our war begins with the al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order. Does this Administration really mean to undertake eradicating terrorism from every nation before we can declare victory? Every war must have an exit-strategy, a point where victory can be declared and our troops can be brought home. I fear that the objectives as defined are sufficiently vague as to prevent us from doing so in the foreseeable future. In fact, the secretary’s statement suggests that once our immediate objectives -- ridding the world of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban government- are met, we intend to actually widen the war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:3
Because I am concerned about winning this war at the least possible cost in American life and treasure, I have introduced legislation to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal. This legislation would give the president a powerful tool to root out Osama bin Laden and his supporters. The legislation would allow the United States to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties, thus providing a political as well as military victory. It would also address the increasingly complex problem of asymmetrical warfare using a solution that had been employed successfully in the past against a similar threat. I am disappointed to see that this legislation has not been considered by Congress, and that the Administration has not yet expressed its support for this bill.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:4
I am also concerned about the emerging nation-building component of our activities in Afghanistan. If, as it appears, our military action in Afghanistan is to benefit the Northern Alliance opposition group, what assurances do we have that this group will not be every bit as unpopular as the Taliban, as press reporting suggests? Not long ago, it was the Taliban itself that was the recipient of U.S. military and financial support. Who is to say that Afghanistan might not benefit from a government managed by several tribal factions with a weak central government and little outside interference either by the U. S. or the UN? Some have suggested that a western-financed pipeline through Afghanistan can only take place with a strong and “stable” government in place- and that it is up to the U.S. government to ensure the success of what is in fact a private financial venture. Whatever the case, my colleagues in Congress and those in the administration openly talk of a years-long post-war UN presence in Afghanistan to “build institutions.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:5
The problem with nation-building is simple: it does not work. From Bosnia to Kosovo to Somalia and points beyond, have we seen even one successful example of UN nation-building? Foreign nation-building results in repressive, unpopular regimes that are seen by the population as Western creations. As such they are inherently unstable, which itself leads to all the more oppression. Indeed, many of our problems in the Middle East began when the CIA placed the Shah in charge of Iran. It took 25 years before he was overthrown, but when it finally happened the full extent of Iranian resentment toward U.S. nation-building exploded into the headlines with the kidnaping of more than 50 American citizens. It is a lesson we seem to have forgotten.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:6
Mr. Chairman, many Arabs believe we “saved” Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in order to justify our continued presence there- to, in turn, keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait “safe.” In a recent interview, President George Bush’s father, President Bush, told CBS that he did not regret not going after Saddam Hussein because “what would have happened if we’d done that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in an Arab land...And we would have seen something much worse than we have now, because we would have had the enmity of all the gulf.” These are thoughtful words from the former president, however it appears to many that this is exactly what we have done. And the result has been as President Bush warned: we have earned the enmity of many on the Arab streets, who regard our military presence on what they consider sacred ground in Saudi Arabia as an open wound in the Middle East. Those who say our policies have somehow justified the attacks against us are terribly mistaken. It is a fact, however, that our policies have needlessly alienated millions in the Arab world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 89:7
Our interventionist policies have not only made enemies around the globe. Our own troops are spread so thin defending foreign peoples and foreign lands, that when a crisis hit our own shores we were forced to bring in foreign AWACs surveillance planes to defend our country. That, more than anything else, underscores the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: our own defense establishment is unable to protect our citizens because it is too busy defending foreign lands. We must focus our efforts on capturing and punishing those who committed this outrageous act against the United States. Then, if we are to be truly safe, we need a national debate on our foreign policy; we need to look at interventionism and the enmity it produces. We need to return to the sadly long-lost policy of peaceful commerce and normal relations with all nations and entangling alliances with none.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 90

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
October 25, 2001

!TITLE:
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
(House of Representatives - October 25, 2001)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it breaks my heart to see what is happening to our country today. All Americans have grieved over the losses suffered on 9-11. The grief for those who lost loved ones is beyond description. These losses have precipitated unprecedented giving to help the families left behind. Unless one has suffered directly, it is difficult to fully comprehend the tragic and sudden loss of close friends and family.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:2
   There are some who, in addition to feeling this huge sense of personal loss that all Americans share, grieve for other serious and profound reasons. For instance, many thoughtful Americans are convinced that the tragedy of 9-11 was preventable. Since that might be true, this provokes a tragic sadness, especially for those who understand how the events of 9-11 needlessly came about.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:3
   The reason why this is so sad and should be thoroughly understood is that so often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic and are harshly dismissed as belonging to the “blame America crowd.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:4
   Those who are so anxious to condemn do not realize that the policies of the American Government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the Government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the Government holds a monopoly on defining.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:5
   America’s heart and soul is more embedded in our love of liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:6
   Throughout our early history, a policy of minding our own business and avoiding entangling alliances, as George Washington admonished, was more representative of American ideals than those we have pursued for the past 50 years. Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11, and for this, they are condemned as being unpatriotic.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:7
   This compounds the sadness and heartbreak that some Americans are feeling. Threats, loss of jobs, censorship and public mockery have been heaped upon those who have made this suggestion. Freedom of expression and thought, the bedrock of the American Republic, is now too often condemned as something viciously evil. This should cause freedom-loving Americans to weep from broken hearts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:8
   Another reason the hearts of many Americans are heavy with grief is because they dread what might come from the many new and broad powers the Government is demanding in the name of providing security. Daniel Webster once warned, “Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:9
   A strong case can be made that the Government regulations, along with a lack of private property responsibility, contributed to this tragedy, but what is proposed? More regulations and even a takeover of all airport security by the Government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:10
   We are not even considering restoring the rights of pilots to carry weapons for self-defense as one of the solutions. Even though pilots once carried guns to protect the mail and armored truck drivers can still carry guns to protect money, protecting passengers with guns is prohibited on commercial flights. The U.S. Air Force can shoot down a wayward aircraft, but a pilot cannot shoot down an armed terrorist.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:11
   It will be difficult to solve our problems with this attitude toward airport security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:12
   Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today’s tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:13
   Any talk of spending restraint is now a thing of the past. We had one anthrax death, and we are asked the next day for a billion dollar appropriations to deal with the problem.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:14
   And a lot more will be appropriated before it is all over. What about the 40,000 deaths per year on government-run highways and the needless deaths associated with the foolish and misdirected war on drugs? Why should anyone be criticized for trying to put this in proper perspective?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:15
   Countless groups are now descending on Washington with their hands out. As usual with any disaster, this disaster is being parlayed into an “opportunity,” as one former Member of the Congress phrased it. The economic crisis that started a long time before 9-11 has contributed to the number of those now demanding Federal handouts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:16
   But there is one business that we need not fear will go into a slump: The Washington lobbying industry. Last year, it spent $1.6 billion lobbying Congress. This year, it will spend much more. The bigger the disaster, the greater the number of vultures who descend on Washington. When I see this happening, it breaks my heart, because liberty and America suffers, and it is all done in the name of justice, equality and security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:17
   Emotions are running high in our Nation’s capital, and in politics emotions are more powerful tools than reason and the rule of law. The use of force to serve special interests and help anyone who claims to be in need unfortunately is an acceptable practice. Obeying the restraints placed in the Constitution is seen as archaic and insensitive to the people’s needs. But far too often the claims of those responding to human tragedies are nothing more than politics as usual. While one group supports bailing out the corporations, another wants to prop up wages and jobs. One group supports federalizing tens of thousands of airport jobs to increase union membership, while another says we should subsidize corporate interests and keep the jobs private.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:18
   Envy and power drive both sides- the special interests of big business and the demands of the welfare/redistribution crowd.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:19
   There are many other reasons to be sad about all that is going on today. In spite of the fact that our government has done such a poor job protecting us and has no intention of changing the policy of meddling overseas (which has contributed to our problems), the people are more dependent on and more satisfied with government than they have been in decades- while demanding even more government control and intrusion in their daily lives.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:20
   It is aggravating to listen to the daily rhetoric regarding liberty and the Constitution while the same people participate in their destruction. It is aggravating to see all the money spent and civil liberties abused while the pilot’s right to carry guns in self-defense is denied. It is even more aggravating to see our government rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to provide security to U.S. territory. A $325 billion military budget, and we cannot even patrol our own shores. This, of course, is just another sign of how little we are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and how willing we are to submit to international government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:21
   It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks. The difficulty in finding bin Laden and his supporters make marque and reprisal quite an appropriate option in this effort.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:22
   We already hear of plans to install and guarantee the next government of Afghanistan. Getting bin Laden and his gang is one thing, nation-building is quite another. Some of our trouble in the Middle East started years ago when our CIA put the Shah in charge of Iran.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:23
   It was 25 years before he was overthrown, and the hatred toward America continues to this day. Those who suffer from our intervention have long memories.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:24
   Our support for the less-than-ethical government of Saudi Arabia, with our troops occupying what most Muslims consider sacred land, is hardly the way to bring peace to the Middle East. A policy driven by our fear of losing control over the oil fields in the Middle East has not contributed to American Security. Too many powerful special interests drive our policy in this region, and this does little to help us preserve security for Americans here at home.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:25
   As we bomb Afghanistan, we continue to send foreign aid to feed the people suffering from the war. I strongly doubt if our food will get them to love us or even be our friends. There is no evidence that the starving receive the food. And too often it is revealed that it ends up in the hands of the military forces we are fighting. While we bomb Afghanistan and feed the victims, we lay plans to install the next government and pay for rebuilding the country. Quite possibly, the new faction we support will be no more trustworthy than the Taliban, to which we sent plenty of aid and weapons in the 1980s. That intervention in Afghanistan did not do much to win reliable friends in the region.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:26
   It just may be that Afghanistan would be best managed by several tribal factions, without any strong centralized government and without any outside influence, certainly not by the U.N. But then again, some claim that the proposed Western financed pipeline through northern Afghanistan can only happen after a strong centralized pro-Western government is put in place.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:27
   It is both annoying and sad that there is so little interest by anyone in Washington in free market solutions to the world’s economic problems. True private ownership of property without regulation and abusive taxation is a thing of the past. Few understand how the Federal Reserve monetary policy causes the booms and the busts that, when severe, as now, only serve to enhance the prestige of the money managers- while most politicians and Wall Streeters demand that the Fed inflate the currency at an even more rapid rate. Today’s conditions give license to the politicians to spend our way out of recession, they hope.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:28
   One thing for sure, as a consequence of the recession and the 9-11 tragedy, is that big spending and deficits are alive and well. Even though we are currently adding to the national debt at the rate of $150 billion per year, most politicians still claim that Social Security is sound and has not been touched. At least the majority of American citizens are now wise enough to know better.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:29
   There is plenty of reason to feel heartbroken over current events. It is certainly not a surprise or illogical for people working in Washington to overreact to the anthrax scare. The feelings of despondency are understandable, whether due to the loss of lives, loss of property, fear of the next attack, or concerned at our own frantic efforts to enhance security will achieve little. But broken or sad hearts need not break our spirits nor impede our reasoning.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:30
   I happen to believe that winning this battle against the current crop of terrorists is quite achievable in a relatively short period of time. But winning the war over the long term is a much different situation. This cannot be achieved without a better understanding of the enemy and the geopolitics that drive this war. Even if relative peace is achieved with a battle victory over Osama bin Laden and his followers, other terrorists will appear from all corners of the world for an indefinite period of time if we do not understand the issues.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:31
   Changing our current foreign policy with wise diplomacy is crucial if we are to really win the war and restore the sense of tranquility to our land that now seems to be so far in our distant past. Our widespread efforts at peacekeeping and nation-building will only contribute to the resentment that drives the fanatics. Devotion to internationalism and a one-world government only exacerbates regional rivalries. Denying that our economic interests drive so much of what the West does against the East impedes any efforts to diffuse the world crisis that already has a number of Americans demanding nuclear bombs to be used to achieve victory. A victory based on this type of aggressive policy would be a hollow victory indeed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:32
   I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:33
   Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:34
   well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keeps this futile war going.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:35
   Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:36
   Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:37
   Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:38
   For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:39
   This war has been behind most big government police powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS’s efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:40
   The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our drug eradication project (using spraying) around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:41
   Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:42
   A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws, and the policies that incite hatred against the United States, are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:43
   Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. In the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:44
   The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict, and reconsideration of our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:45
   Without an understanding of why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 90:46
   We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 91

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
October 31, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services committee should reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support- rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:2
Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank “creates jobs” and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called “the broken window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the “benefits” of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:3
Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all; what is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:4
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:5
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:6
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12-15% of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:7
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:8
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 91:9
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 92

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Foolishness Of Fiat

!DATE:
31 October 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world’s politicians, special interests, government bureaucrats, and financiers all love fiat money because they all benefit from it. But freedom-loving, hardworking, ethical and thrifty individuals suffer.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:2
Fiat money is paper money that gets its value from a government edict and compulsory legal tender laws. Honest money, something of real value, like a precious metal, gets its value from the market and through voluntary exchange. The world today is awash in fiat money like never before, and we face a financial crisis like never before, conceived many decades before the 9–11 crisis hit.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:3
Fiat money works as long as trust in the currency lasts. But eventually trust is always withdrawn from paper money. Fiat money evolves out of sound money, which always originates in the market, but paper money inevitably fails no matter how hard the beneficiaries try to perpetuate the fraud. We are now witnessing the early stages of the demise of a worldwide financial system built on the fiction that wealth can come out of a printing press or a computer at our central banks.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:4
Japan, failing to understand this, has tried for more than a decade to stimulate her economy and boost her stock market by printing money and increasing government spending, and it has not worked. Argentina, even with the hopes placed in its currency board, is nevertheless facing default on its foreign debt and a crisis in confidence. More bailouts from the IMF and U.S. dollar may temper the crisis for a while, but ultimately it will only hurt the dollar and the U.S. taxpayers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:5
We cannot continually bail out others with expansion of the dollar money supply, as we have with the crisis in Turkey, Argentina, and the countries of Southeast Asia. This policy has its limits, and confidence in the dollar is the determining factor. Even though, up until now, confidence has reigned, encouraged by our political and economic strength, this era is coming to an end. Our homeland has been attacked, our enemies are not easily subdued, our commitments abroad are unsustainable, and our economy is fast slipping into chaos.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:6
Printing money is not an answer, yet that is all that is offered. The clamor for low-interest rates by all those who benefit from fiat money has prompted the Fed to create new money out of thin air like never before. Driving the Fed funds rate down from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a level below the price inflation rate, represents nothing short of panic and has done nothing to recharge the economy. But as one would expect, confidence in the dollar is waning.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:7
I am sure, due to the crisis, a faith in fiat and a failure to understand the business cycle, the Fed will continue with the only thing it knows to do: credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:8
This policy reflects the central bank’s complete ignorance as to the cause of the problem: Credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:9
Since the Federal Reserve first panicked in early January, it has created $830 billion of fiat money out of thin air. The country is no richer. The economy is weaker. The stock market has continued downward, and unemployment has skyrocketed. Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:10
Nothing can correct the problems we face if we do not give up on the foolishness of fiat.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 92:11
Mr. Speaker, a dollar crisis is quickly approaching. We should prepare ourselves.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 93

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Airport Security Federalization Act

!DATE:
1 November 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose H.R. 3150, the Airport Security Federalization Act. As the short title of the bill suggests, this legislation is a bureaucracy-laden approach. While the approach of this legislation is marginally preferable to the complete federalization of the workforce being offered by the House Minority, the bill is otherwise strikingly similar to the Senate’s approach. Regrettably, I think portions of the manager’s amendment actually make the legislation worse. For example, the deputization of private security forces is clearly a step in the wrong direction.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 93:2
I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 93:3
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 93:4
We need to stop this spending spree. I oppose this new taxation and spending, as well as the steps taken in this bill, the substitute, and unfortunately in the manager’s amendment as well. Each of these items moves further down the road of nationalizing air travel in this country and, as such, must be rejected.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
November 1, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on Air Safety Legislation



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Securing America For Effective Transportation, or Safety, Act. This legislation is in stark contrast to the bureaucracy laden approaches of other bills. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies. The actions taken by this legislation fit into a few broad categories. First, it would give airline pilots the right to defend themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers by permitting them to bear arms. Second, it would clearly define the act of skyjacking as an act of piracy and provide appropriate punishment for any such act, up to and including capital punishment. Next, this legislation would provide appropriate strengthening of regulation of airline security in a fashion consistent with our constitutional framework. This would be done by requiring, for example, that law enforcement personnel be posted at screening locations rather than simply in the confines of an airport, and by requiring the production of passenger manifests for international flights. Finally, this bill would give airlines a strong incentive to improve passenger security, not by giving them taxpayer funded grants nor by creating new bureaucracies tasked with making administrative law, but rather by providing a tax incentive to airlines and other companies performing screening and security duties.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 94:2
One example of my approach is how it treats employees. Rather than the Senate approach federalizing the work force or the House approach of subsidizing private security firms via federal contracts, my bill raises the take-home pay of airline security personnel by exempting their pay from federal income taxes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 94:3
Mr. Speaker, the House bill, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion dollars, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion dollars in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion dollars worth of subsidies to the airline industry.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 94:4
We need to stop this spending spree. President Bush correctly has indicated that the best way to deal with economic stimulus is not to spend more federal dollars but rather to engage in tax cuts. Yet, by creating this new airline ticket tax, we are going in the opposite direction. I oppose this new tax and it is not included in my bill. Instead, the approach taken in my bill uses tax reductions to ensure airline safety and promote further economic growth. By granting tax incentives for safety initiatives, we gain the advantages of new security precautions without creating onerous new regulations or costly and burdensome new bureaucracies. I proudly offer this bill for consideration.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
November 7, 2001

!TITLE:
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:2
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is noncontroversial, but the bill itself, the bill to expand NATO and the foreign aid involved in it, is controversial from my viewpoint. It may not be controversial here in Washington, but if we go outside of Washington and talk to the people who pay the bills and the people who have to send the troops, they find this controversial. They think we are taken for saps as we go over and extend our sphere of influence throughout the world, and now extending into Eastern Europe.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:3
   I, too, was a friend of Jerry Solomon. We came into the Congress together in 1978. One thing for sure that Jerry understood very clearly was the care that we must give to expanding our influence as well as sacrificing our sovereignty, because he was strongly opposed to the United Nations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:4
   As chairman of the Committee on Rules, he would permit my amendment to come up and at least debate the effectiveness of belonging to the United Nations, so I have fond memories of Jerry, especially in his support of my efforts to try to diminish the United Nations’ influence and the taking away of our sovereignty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:5
   Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do oppose NATO. I believe that it has a bad influence on what we do. We want to extend our control over Eastern Europe, and as has been pointed out, this can be seen as a threat to the Russians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:6
   NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO that we went along with.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:7
   Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop and think about this, and instead of expanding NATO, instead of getting ready to send another $55 million that we are authorizing today to the Eastern European countries, we ought to ask: Has it really served the interests of the United States?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:8
   Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is very popular.    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for our country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:9
   I think the bill is motivated for two reasons. One is to increase the sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, who will be the greatest influence on the commercial aspects of Eastern Europe, and so there is a commercial interest there, as well as in this bill there is $55 million of foreign aid which I think a lot of Americans would challenge under these circumstances whether or not we should be sending another $55 million overseas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:10
   We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware of.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:11
   But overall I oppose this because I support a position of a foreign policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of interest of the United States. I know the other side of the argument, that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention and many, many entangling alliances. I disagree with that because I think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread too thin and finally we get too poor. I think we are starting to see signs of this. We have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different countries. When the crisis hit with the New York disaster, it turned out that our planes were so spread out around the world that it was necessary for our allies to come in and help us. This is used by those who disagree with me as a positive, to say, “See, it works. NATO is wonderful. They’ll even come and help us out.” I see it as sad and tragic that we spent last year, I think it was over $325 billion for national defense, and we did not even have an AWACS plane to protect us.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:12
   During that time when we had our tragedy in New York, we probably had cities that we paid to protect better than our own cities. If planes went awry or astray in Korea or Haiti or wherever, I think that they probably would have been shot down. I see this as a tragedy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:13
   I hope we will all give some consideration for nonintervention.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:14
   Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history’s great ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:15
   With this victory, however, NATO’s raison d’etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this “new” NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with “economic, social and political difficulties ..... ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.” The new name of the NATO game was “interventionism”; defense was now passé.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:16
   Nowhere was this “new NATO” more starkly in evidence than in Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against the will of those who will live in them.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:17
   Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:18
   According to the Department of Defense’s latest available figures, there are more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel deployed overseas on six continents in 141 nations. It is little wonder, then, that when a crisis hit our own shores--the treacherous attacks of September 11--we were forced to call on foreign countries to defend American airspace! Our military is spread so thin meddling in every corner of the globe, that defense of our own homeland is being carried out by foreigners.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 95:19
   Rather than offer our blessings and open our pocketbooks for the further expansion of NATO, the United States should get out of this outdated and interventionist organization. American foreign policy has been most successful when it focuses on the simple principles of friendship and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
November 8, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:1
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this timely hearing on the important topic of identity crimes committed against the victims of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I would also like to thank the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee for participating in this hearing. It is hard to imagine a more shocking exploitation of the September 11 tragedy than targeting the victims of the terrorist attacks for identity theft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:2
I would also like to thank the Chairwoman for leading the effort to ensure the Social Security Administration is making full use of the “Death Master File” in order to help reduce the incidence of identity theft. It is long-past time we recognized the ways in which Congress’ transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier facilitates identity crimes. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number as an identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. Federal law even requires Americans to produce a Social Security number to get a fishing license!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:3
Because of the congressionally-mandated abuse of the Social Security number, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. As supportive as I am of efforts to ensure that the Social Security Administration minimizes the risk of identity theft, the only way to ensure the federal government is not inadvertently assisting identity criminals is to stop using the Social Security number as a uniform ID. I have introduced legislation to address the American people’s concerns regarding the transformation of the Social Security number into a national ID, the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:4
Madam Chairwoman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:5
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 96:7
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue, and for your efforts to take steps to protect the American people from government-facilitated identity theft. However, I would ask my colleagues to remember that efforts to protect the American people from identity crimes will not be effective until Congress addresses the root cause of the problem: the transformation of the Social Security number into a national identifier.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
November 16, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing examining the question of whether national ID cards would enhance security. Protecting the security of the American people from foreign threats is the most important responsibility of the federal government, and there is much the government needs to do in this area. Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Moreover, private property owners certainly can take steps to protect their property from terrorists and other criminals. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for airlines to issue private ID cards to passengers and perform background checks as a condition of selling them a ticket.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Congress should reject proposals which provide only the illusion of security, while in reality simply eroding constitutional government and individual liberty. Perhaps the most onerous example of a proposal that creates the illusion of security (yet really promotes servitude) is the plan to force all Americans to carry a national ID card. A uniform national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it inevitably uses that power in harmful ways.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 97:3
A national ID card threatens liberty, but it will not enhance safety. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists toward needless snooping on innocent Americans! This is what has happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste time snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because their banking activities seem suspicious to a bank clerk.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 97:4
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). As we consider how best to enhance the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of the people, it is more important then ever that Congress remain mindful of the constitutional limitations on its power.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 97:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again express my gratitude to the committee for holding this important hearing. I also would remind my colleagues that national ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism that contribute nothing to the security of the American people. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject all proposals for a national ID, and focus instead on measures that will effectively protect both security and liberty.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 98

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The War On Terrorism

!DATE:
November 29, 2001

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker: We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target – the enemy – and then stay focused on that target. It’s impossible to keep one’s eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it’s the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:2
The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the “mob”or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:3
Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:4
We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they have paid a high price. They’re all dead. So those most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous act.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:5
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But there’s no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban’s rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:7
The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:8
It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to “nation build” in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don’t even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban “target” remains suspect by many.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:9
Former FBI Deputy Director John O’Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O’Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the historical record.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:10
To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in The Hindu, India’s national newspaper- not necessarily to agree with the paper’s sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five major TV news networks.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:11
This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13, 2001:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:12
The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:13
The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we’re going to avoid letting this war get out of control.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:14
It’s important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe: “We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values.” This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:15
For various reasons, the enemy with whom we’re now at war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock- not with vague declarations, with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we’re not precise in identifying our enemy, it’s sure going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:16
Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy- terrorism- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building- only a more sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:17
It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops. It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:18
Since we don’t know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain — Saddam Hussein — guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:19
The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: “We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.” Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:20
The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it’s all so unnecessary.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:21
It’s just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I’m not talking about the likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I’m talking about the Arab/Muslim masses.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:22
In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: “We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?” Albright’s response was “We think the price is worth it.” Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:23
Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power — there were strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq — a source of much hatred directed toward the United States.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:24
But placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to avoid- the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:25
Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today- if not more so.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:26
It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were “our” oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:27
Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:28
It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don’t we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:29
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:30
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:31
Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims’ problems.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:32
We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto’s quote after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event “Awakened a sleeping giant.” Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. We are hardly the same nation we were in 1941. Today, we’re anything but a sleeping giant. There’s no contest for our status as the world’s only economic, political and military super power. A “sleeping giant” would not have troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:33
The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:34
Let’s hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:35
The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.” He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:36
As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan’s support, although it continually wavers, in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then some- even before the bombing has stopped.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:37
Rumsfeld’s plan, as reported in Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey’s support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:38
It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continually get us into more trouble than we have bargained for- and the spending is endless. I am not optimistic that this Congress will anytime soon come to its senses. I am afraid that we will never treat the taxpayers with respect. National bankruptcy is a more likely scenario than Congress adopting a frugal and wise spending policy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:39
Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and keep our eye on it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:40
It is safe to assume that the number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:41
One commentator pointed out that when the mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only bombing “Sicily,” but are thinking about bombing “Athens” (Iraq).


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:42
If a corrupt city or state government does business with a drug cartel or organized crime and violence results, we don’t bomb city hall or the state capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:43
It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember, though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our nation’s highways each month. Could it be that the sense of personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, the numbers don’t add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the death and destruction that could lie ahead.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:44
As members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:45
We have not done any better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the home front than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has sadly been the liberties all Americans enjoy. With all the new power we have given to the administration, none has truly improved the chances of catching the terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the consequences of this new legislation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:46
Just as the crisis provided an opportunity for some to promote a special-interest agenda in our foreign policy efforts, many have seen the crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws, changes which, up until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:47
Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. “Extremists” who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:48
Even before the passage of the recent draconian legislation, hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion, and millions of dollars of al Qaeda funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with uncooperative foreign entities like the Saudi government, which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who financed the terrorists’ operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:49
The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared to the effort by anti-gun fanatics, who jump at every chance to undermine the Second Amendment. When crimes are committed with the use of guns, it’s argued that we must remove guns from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy them. The counter argument made by Second Amendment supporters correctly explains that this would only undermine the freedom of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to reduce crime.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:50
Now we hear a similar argument that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist act. The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are illegal, will still be able to circumvent anti-terrorist laws. To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain, but that is what I believe the Congress has done.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:51
We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government’s policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:52
Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to presidential documents from previous administrations, now a “need to know” has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft’s position is that presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy while ignoring the 4 th Amendment protections of the people’s privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming he must “protect”the privacy of the individuals who might be involved — a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:53
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:54
The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a long-time tradition in this country. One person or one branch of government should never control military operations. Our system of government has always required a shared-power arrangement.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:55
The Anti-Terrorism Bill did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined the liberties of all Americans.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:56
“Know Your Customer” type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but also all businesses will be required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with the total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S. government. Financial services consultants are convinced that this new regulation will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is that the regulations have been sought after by federal law-enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:57
Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions of the anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:59
The“anti-terrorism” legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or from others fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before the vote! The American public should not tolerate these political games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:60
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:61
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:62
The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:63
In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:65
Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages for five years. If so, what would have been its justification?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That’s not what’s being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:67
The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. It may be that we have come to that stage in our history when an executive order is “the law of the land,” but it’s not “kinda cool,” as one member of the previous administration bragged. It’s a process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:68
There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available, and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel us to reject such a system outright.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:69
Those who favor these trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of “trial” without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:70
One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were “convicted” and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver’s family fared no better.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:71
It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice and prosperity throughout the world is through example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian dictator.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:72
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice system, it’s intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:73
Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:74
Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should never concede this power to a President or an Attorney General. Congressional oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this unconstitutional assumption of power.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:76
The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now it’s argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:79
The proponents of the draft call it “mandatory service.” Slavery, too, was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country. Let’s hope the American people don’t fall for this “need to serve” argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the Selective Service altogether.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:80
However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the military and who demands that the draft be reinstated, should be drafted first — the 18-year olds last. Since the Pentagon says they don’t need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly formed domestic army. After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:81
I’m certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the military draft.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:82
I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned- not only about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the Congress deals with the crisis. Personal freedom is the element of the human condition that has made America great and unique and something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they are acting in the best interest of freedom and justice. However, good intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:83
I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:84
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress , years ago warned us that good intentions in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause. Weaver stated:


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:85
“Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others — with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 98:86
This message is one we should all ponder.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 99

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
November 30, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that HR 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:2
Under HR 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90% of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.” This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that terms such as “likely insolvency,” “unreasonable economic disruption”, and “market instability” are highly subjective, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:3
The drafters of HR 3210 claim that this creates a temporary government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks? Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be temporary.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:4
HR 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the “moral hazard” problem. A moral hazard is created when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:5
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. HR 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks!


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:6
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government’s control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally-funded insurance are avoided.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:7
The version of HR 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, HR 3210 instructs the Treasury department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 99:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by American taxpayers. More significantly, by ignoring the moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 100

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden

!DATE:
4 December 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, December 4, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues read the attached article “Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden” by Larry Sechrest, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. Professor Sechrest documents the role privateers played in the war against pirates who plagued America in the early days of the Republic. These privateers often operated with letters of marque and reprisal granted by the United States Congress.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:2
Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today’s terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:3
Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to apprehend using traditional military means. We have seen that bombs and missiles can effectively and efficiently knock out the military capability, economy and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors terrorists. However, recent events also seem to suggest that traditional military force is not as effective in bringing lawless terrorists to justice.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:4
When a terrorist stronghold has been destroyed by military power, terrorists simply may move to another base before military forces locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe the drafters of the Constitution would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:6
LET PRIVATEERS TROLL FOR BIN LADEN (by Larry J. Sechrest) In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion — that’s billion with a “b” — to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:7
Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot’s successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:8
We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bailjumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:9
Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called “privateers,” played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists’ cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:10
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:11
Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers’ nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers’ bond to the owners of the seized ship.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:12
If the seizure was, just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer’s owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative — albeit risky,


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:13
Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:14
During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689–1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd’s of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:15
If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative — private ships of war.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:16
In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and “every terrorist group with a global reach.” The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 100:17
Let’s bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 101

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce

!DATE:
4 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want today to address my resolution, H. Con. Res. 277 to recognize the important contributions of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was founded in New Mexico in 1979. Headquartered in Washington, DC the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce currently has a network of more than 200 chapters in the United States and its territories. One of those active chapters is in my district, in fact the San Marcos Hispanic Chamber of Commerce just held its successful Turkey Trot Golf Tournament during our Thanksgiving break.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 101:2
The importance of this national organization cannot be overstated, Hispanics have an annual purchasing power of approximately $500 billion and the Chamber effectively represents the more than 1 million Hispanic-owned businesses. The organization’s recent growth has shown its influence in communities not traditionally considered centers for Latino development, locations such as Richmond, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and Minnesota’s Twin Cities area.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 101:3
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides important recognition to its members and supporters through an annual awards program. Moreover, the organization furnishes its membership with a host of critical services, ably guided by the leadership of its President and CEO George Herrera, Chair Ms. Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow, who also chairs the DC Chamber of Commerce; and Vice Chairman J.R. Gonzales, President of a communications firm in Austin, Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 101:4
Importantly, the Chamber has maintained international trade as one of its top long term priorities, even maintaining an office in Mexico City. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides and promotes the kind of private sector trade initiatives and assistance that I believe all of us can support.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 101:5
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to be able to bring to the Floor today this resolution to recognize the important contributions of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and ask for the support of members in passing this item.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 102

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
December 5, 2001

!TITLE:
Ongoing Violence in Israel and Palestine



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:2
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and not, obviously, because it condemns violence. We all condemn the violence. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because it endorses a foreign policy that I do not endorse, and it does that by putting on unecessary demands. So the demands part of this resolution is the part that I object to, not the condemnation of violence.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:3
   By doing this, we serve to antagonize. We hear today talk about having solidarity with Israel. Others get up and try in their best way to defend the Palestinians and the Arabs. So it is sort of a contest: Should be we pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:4
   But I think there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We have not even heard that yet.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:5
   I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:6
   Now, I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral, unless somebody declares war against us, but not to demand that we pick sides in every fight in the world. Yet, this is what we are doing. I think our perceptions are in error, because it is not intended that we make the problem worse. Obviously, the authors of the resolution, do not want to make the problem worse. But we have to realize, perceptions are pretty important. So the perceptions are, yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:7
   I have a proposal and a suggestion which I think fits the American tradition. We should treat both sides equally, but in a different way. Today we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money and telling them what to do. Not $1 million here or there, not $100 million here or there, but tens of billions of dollars over decades to both sides; always trying to buy peace.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:8
   My argument is that it generally does not work, that there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. We should start off by defunding, defunding both sides. I am just not for giving all of this money, because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilians killed on the Palestinian side, we can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:9
   So we are, in a way, an accomplice on all of this killing because we fund both sides. So I would argue we should consider neutrality, to consider friendship with both sides, and not to pretend that we are all so wise that we know exactly with whom to have solidarity. I think that is basically our problem. We have a policy that is doomed to fail in the Middle East; and it fails slowly and persistently, always drawing us in, always demanding more money.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:10
   With the Arabs, we cannot tell the Arabs to get lost. The Arabs are important. They have a lot of oil under their control. We cannot flaunt the Arabs and say, get lost. We must protect our oil. It is called “our oil.” At the same time, there is a strong constituency for never offending Israel.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:11
   I think that we cannot buy peace under these circumstances. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. I think we can contribute a whole lot by being friends with both sides. But I believe the money is wasted, it is spent unwisely, and it actually does not serve the interests of the American people.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:12
   First, it costs us money. That means that we have to take this money from the American taxpayer.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:13
   Second, it does not achieve the peace that we all hope to have.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:14
   Therefore, the policy of foreign noninterventionism, where the United States is not the bully and does not come in and tell everybody exactly what to do, by putting demands on them, I think if we did not do that, yes, we could still have some moral authority to condemn violence.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:15
   But should we not condemn violence equally? Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I do not believe that to be the care. I believe that it happens on both sides, and on both sides they use our money to do it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:16
   I urge a no vote on this resolution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:17
   Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I was appalled by the suicide bombings in Israel over the weekend. I am appalled by all acts of violence targeting noncombatants. The ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East is robbing generations of their hopes and dreams and freedom. The cycle of violence ensures economic ruin and encourages political extremism; it punishes, most of all, the innocent.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:18
   The people of the Middle East must find a way to break this cycle of violence. As Secretary of State Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee in October, “You have got to find a way not to find justifications for what we are doing, but to get out of what we are doing to break the cycle.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:19
   Mr. Speaker, I agree with our Secretary of State. The Secretary also said that we need to move beyond seeing the two sides there as “just enemies.” I agree with that too. But I don’t think this piece of legislation moves us any closer to that important goal. While it rightly condemns the senseless acts of violence against the innocent, it unfortunately goes much further than that--and that is where I regrettably must part company with this bill. Rather than stopping at condemning terrorism, this bill makes specific demands in Israel and the Palestinian areas regarding internal policy and specifically the apprehension and treatment of suspected terrorists. I don’t think that is our job here in Congress.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:20
   Further, it recommends that the President suspend all relations with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority if they do not abide by the demands of this piece of legislation. I don’t think this is a very helpful approach to the problem. Ceasing relations with one side in the conflict is, in effect, picking sides in the conflict. I don’t think that has been our policy, nor is it in our best interest, be it in the Middle East, Central Asia, or anywhere else. The people of the United States contribute a substantial amount of money to both Israel and to the Palestinian people. We have made it clear in our policy and with our financial assistance that we are not taking sides in the conflict, but rather seeking a lasting peace in the region. Even with the recent, terrible attack. I don’t think this is the time for Congress to attempt to subvert our government’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 102:21
   Finally, the bill makes an attempt to join together our own fight against those who have attacked the Untied States on September 11 and Israel’s ongoing dispute with the Palestinians. I don’t think that is necessary. We are currently engaged in a very difficult and costly effort to seek out and bring to justice those who have attacked us and those who supported them, “wherever they may be,” as the president has said. Today’s reports of the possible loss of at least two our servicemen in Afghanistan drives that point home very poignantly. As far as I know, none of those who attacked us had ties to Palestine or were harbored there. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all condemn terrorism wherever it may be without committing the United States to joining endless ongoing conflicts across the globe.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 103

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
December 6, 2001

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so-called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that’s why it’s called “free”- it’s free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ”free-trade agreement“ is an oxymoron. We don’t need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally- taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB’s, that stifle economic growth.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 103:5
Mr. Speaker, we are not promoting free trade today, but we are undermining our sovereignty and the constitutional separation of powers. We are avoiding the responsibilities with which our constituents have entrusted us. Remember, congressional authority we give up today will not be restored when less popular Presidents take office in the future. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote NO on TPA.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 104

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Too Many Federal Cops

!DATE:
6 December 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, December 6, 2001



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the RECORD a copy of an article by former cabinet member Joseph Califano that appeared in today’s Washington Post. I call this article entitled “Too Many Federal Cops,” to the attention of Members. It presents a balanced and even-handed assessment of how successive administrations over the decades have expanded Federal police powers at considerable cost to our endangered civil liberties.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:2
I wholeheartedly agree with the points raised by Mr. Califano, having spoken in this House concerning the same topic on many occasions. I wish to commend Mr. Califano for his timely and important piece, and recommend it to Members and others concerned with preserving civil liberties.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:3
TOO MANY FEDERAL COPS
(By Joseph A. Califano Jr.)


As defense lawyers and civil libertarians huff and puff about Attorney General John Ashcroft’s procedural moves to bug conversations between attorneys and their imprisoned clients, hold secret criminal military trials and detain individuals suspected of having information about terrorists, they are missing an even more troubling danger: the extraordinary increase in federal police personnel and power.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:4
In the past, interim procedural steps, such as the military tribunals Franklin Roosevelt established during World War II to try saboteurs, have been promptly terminated when the conflict ended. Because of its likely permanence, the expansion and institutionalization of national police power poses a greater threat to individual liberties. Congress should count to 10 before creating any additional police forces or a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:5
Pre-Sept. 11, the FBI stood at about 27,000 in personnel; Drug Enforcement Administration at 10,000; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at 4,000; Secret Service at 6,000; Border Patrol at 10,000; Customs Service at 12,000; and Immigration and Naturalization Service at 34,000. At the request of the White House, Congress is moving to beef up these forces and expand the number of armed air marshals from a handful to more than a thousand. Despite the president’s objection, Congress recently created another security force of 28,000 baggage screeners under the guidance of the attorney general.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:6
In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the military from performing civilian police functions. Over Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s opposition, President Ronald Reagan declared drug trafficking a threat to national security as the rationale for committing the military to the war on drugs. (Weinberger argued that “reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to . . . the democratic process.”) Reagan’s action gives George Bush a precedent for committing the military and National Guard to civilian police duty at airports and borders.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:7
Given the president’s candor about the likelihood that the war on terrorism will last many years, the administration and a compliant Congress are in clear and present danger of establishing a national police force and — under either the attorney general, director of homeland security or an agency combining the CIA and State and Defense intelligence (or some combination of the above) — a de facto ministry of the interior.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:8
The fact that George Bush has no intention of misusing such institutions is irrelevant. You don’t have to be a bad guy to abuse police power. Robert Kennedy, a darling of liberals, brushed aside civil liberties concerns when he went after organized crime and trampled on the rights of Jimmy Hoffa in his failed attempt to convict the Teamsters boss of something. He bugged and trailed Martin Luther King Jr., even collecting information on the civil rights leader’s private love life, until Lyndon Johnson put a stop to it.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:9
Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:10
In the paranoia of Watergate, the CIA followed a Washington Post report for weeks, even photographing him through the picture window of his home, because he had infuriated the president and the agency with a story containing classified information. Faced with our discovery (I was The Post’s lawyer at the time), CIA Director William Colby readily admitted that “someone had gone too far.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:11
All 100 members of the Senate voted to create the newest federal police force under the rubric of airport security. In its rush to judgment, the Senate acted as though a federal force was the only alternative to using the airlines or private contractors. Quite the contrary, policing by the individual public airport authorities, guided by federal standards, would be more in line with our tradition of keeping police power local.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 104:12
It’s time for the executive and Congress to take a hard look at the police personnel amassing at the federal level and the extent to which we are concentrating them under any one individual short of the president. Congress should turn its most skeptical laser on the concept of an Office of Homeland Security and on any requests to institutionalize its director beyond the status of a special assistant to the president. We have survived for more than 200 years without a ministry of the interior or national police force, and we can effectively battle terrorism without creating one now.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 105

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
December 13, 2001

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, December 13, 2001

!TITLE:
Introduction of the ”Human Cloning Prevention Act of 2001“



!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation prohibiting federal funding for any organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques. Moral and legal questions surrounding human cloning are among the most contentious and divisive facing America today. However, I hope we can all agree that no American should be forced to subsidize this activity.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 105:2
Some believe the current prohibition on the use of federal funds for cloning and cloning research is sufficient protection for those taxpayers who object to cloning. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the current ban is not permanent- and thus could be changed at will by a future Congress or administration. Second, because money is fungible, current law does not necessarily prevent federal funds from subsidizing cloning. After all, whenever a company that engages in cloning research receives federal dollars for any project, the company obviously then has more dollars available to use for cloning. Therefore, any federal funding for companies that engage in human cloning forces taxpayers to subsidize those activities. Thus, the only way to ensure that no American is forced to pay for cloning research is to eliminate all federal funding of such companies or organizations.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 105:3
Thomas Jefferson said ”To compel a man to furnish contributions for the promulgation of ideas he disbelieves is both sinful and tyrannical.“ I hope my colleagues will embrace the spirit of Jefferson and join me in ending the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize a practice so many find abhorrent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and forbid federal funds from going to any company which engages in human cloning.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 106

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 3054

!DATE:
16 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3054. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and compassion shown by those who gave their lives attempting to rescue their fellow citizens in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. I also rise in admiration and gratitude to the passengers of Flight 93 who knowingly sacrificed their lives to prevent another terrorist attack. However, I do not believe that an unconstitutional authorization for Congressional Gold Medals is in the true spirit of these American heros. After all, this legislation purports to honor personal sacrifices and acts of heroism by forcing others to pay for these gold medals.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 106:2
Mr. Speaker, money appropriated for gold medals, or any other unconstitutional purpose, is, in the words of Davy Crockett, “Not Yours to Give.” It is my pleasure to attach a copy of Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours to Give” speech for the record. I hope my colleagues will carefully consider its’ message before voting to take money from American workers and families to spend on unconstitutional programs and projects.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 106:3
Instead of abusing the taxing and spending power, I urge my colleagues to undertake to raise the money for these medals among ourselves. I would gladly donate to a Congressional Gold Medal fund whose proceeds would be used to purchase and award gold medals to those selected by Congress for this honor. Congress should also reduce the federal tax burdened on the families of those who lost their lives helping their fellow citizens on September 11. Mr. Speaker, reducing the tax burden on these Americans would be a real sacrifice for many in Washington since any reduction in taxes represents a loss of real and potential power for the federal government.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 106:4
H.R. 3054 violates fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility by giving the Secretary of the Treasury almost unquestioned authority to determine who can and cannot receive a gold medal. Official estimates are that implementation of this bill will cost approximately 3.9 million dollars, however the terms of the bill suggest that the costs incurred by the United States taxpayer could be much higher. Furthermore, unlike previous legislation authorizing gold medals, H.R. 3054 does not instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to use profits generated by marketing bronze duplicates of the medal to reimburse the taxpayer for the costs of producing the medal. Unfortunately, because this bill was moved to the suspension calender without hearings or a mark-up there was no opportunity for members of the Financial Services Committee such as myself to examine these questions.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 106:5
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution — a Constitution which each Member of Congress swore to uphold. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation and respectfully suggest that perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from other people’s money. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money, but using our own funds to finance these gold medal is true to the sprit of the heros of September 11.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 107

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Saddam Hussein

!DATE:
19 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam Hussein versus Iraq, “Iraq” suggesting the people of Iraq, who are hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different subject. Also changing the word “aggression” to “a mounting threat.” Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I would suppose. Even “a mounting threat” is a bit threatening to me, but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly see as a threat to our national security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:3
One of the reasons why I take an approach on foreign policy where we are less involved overseas is mainly because I feel that the number one obligation for us in Congress and for the people of this country is to preserve liberty and defend it from outside threats. The authors of this resolution, I am sure, have the same goals, but, over the years, I think those goals have been undermined. We as a Nation are now probably weaker rather than stronger and we are more threatened because of what we do overseas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me not to be in the best interests of the United States.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:5
Take, for instance, one of the whereas’s in this resolution. “Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.” We keep hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with technology.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:6
So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our weapons.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:7
My idea of national defense is minding our own business, being strong, and making sure our borders are secure. After 9/11, we had to go to Germany and ask them for help for AWACS airplanes to patrol our shores. I understand our ports are not necessarily secure, and yet we have Coast Guard cutters down in Colombia and in the Mediterranean Sea. I think if we learn anything it is that we ought to work harder to protect our country and not make us so vulnerable, yet we continue along this way.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:8
We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go into Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:9
I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE) that if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for our oil. I think that is what this is all about.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:10
Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being spread in this country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:11
It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous about this plan to invade Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:12
The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing, when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there, and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be okay.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:13
Another “whereas,” mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can perpetuate war forever under that resolution.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:14
As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:15
So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more cautiously.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 107:16
I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war with Iraq today, and I disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 108

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yes, IAEA Inspected Iraq

!DATE:
19 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 108:2
It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23 January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. MCDERMOTT).

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 109

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yields Time To Mr. Rohrabacher

!DATE:
19 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman’s time has expired.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 109:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 109:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9–11 than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me put it this way. The answer is yes, but I would not right away. Like the President says, we must do things sequentially, and we must be absolutely committed to the job. If we do things sequentially, the next order of business is taking care of the threat in Iraq. And if China is, yes, helping terrorists murder thousands of Americans, yes, we should help the Chinese people overthrow their dictatorship as well.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 109:4
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 110

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq

!DATE:
19 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:2
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the United States to do the enforcing.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:3
Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow the rules.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:4
There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It would not go along with UN rules.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:5
The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental to the children who have died in Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:6
Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:7
This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq. I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear weapons being built.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:8
But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times. Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:9
He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national security.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:10
He said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:11
Because he is a little bit of a political and a diplomatic threat, we are making these plans to pursue war or in reality continue the war because the Persian Gulf war has not really ended.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:12
So once again, I ask my colleagues who are going to be voting on this shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary and does not have any effect, why bring it to the floor? There would be no purpose. If Hussein is aligned with the terrorists, the President already has authority to do something about it. So what really is the reason for this, especially when it was first announced that this would be an act of aggression, which is really what they feel in their hearts, in their minds, what they want this to be? It has been toned down a little bit. But this resolution is a support for expanding the war and continuing what has been going on for 12 years.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:13
Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:14
But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to go after Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:15
We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 110:16
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 111

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:

!DATE:
19 December 2001


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 30 seconds remaining on his time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) has the right to close.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:3
Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi Arabia.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:4
Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco, and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that operation.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:5
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 — the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an “act of aggression” against the United States — what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on September 11, 2001.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:6
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq’s government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East — many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.’ ”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:7
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen “evidence” of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the “smoking gun” of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that “the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq.” The Times goes on to suggest that the “Mohamad Atta” who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe’s Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats — a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey — have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:8
Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn’t matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter — who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq — come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O’Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam’s a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.” Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:9
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:10
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies — critical in maintaining this coalition — have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was “completely united” in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said. “. . . so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against.” Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:11
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, “If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.”


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:12
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?


!CITE:
2001 Ron Paul 111:13
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden’s twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden’s hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles. 


2002 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Case For Defending America

!DATE:
24 January 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AKIN). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:1
DISCHARGE PETITION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my Special Order that deals with foreign policy, in which I make the case for defending America, I would like to make a few comments about the campaign finance reform and the discharge petition that was just mentioned by our previous colleagues.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:2
I do not share the enthusiasm that they do about bringing such a bill to the floor. I certainly do not share the enthusiasm of passing such legislation, because it sets us backwards if our goal here is to defend liberty and minimize the size of government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:3
The one thing I agree with him entirely on is that the problem exists. There is no doubt there is a huge influence of money here in Washington, and even in my prepared statement I mention how corporations influence our foreign policy and that something ought to be done about it; but campaign finance reform goes in exactly the wrong direction. It just means more regulations, more controls, telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress and how they can campaign. That is not the problem.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:4
The problem is that we have Members of Congress that yield to the temptation and influence of money. If we had enough Members around here that did not yield to the temptation, we would not have to have campaign finance reform, we would not have to regulate money, we would not have to undermine the first amendment, and we would not have to undermine the Constitution in that effort.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:5
I agree we have a problem, but I believe the resistance could be here without much change. The ultimate solution to the need for campaign finance reform comes only when we have a constitutional- type government, where government is not doing the things they should be doing. There is a logical incentive for corporations and many individuals to come to Washington, because they can buy influence and buy benefits and buy contracts. The government was never meant to do that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:6
The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do nothing to preserve the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:7
My Special Order, as I said, has to do with foreign policy. It is entitled “The Case for Defending America.” As we begin this new legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on this past year. All Americans will remember the moment and place when tragedy hit us on September 11. We also know that a good philosophy to follow is to turn adversity into something positive, if at all possible.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:8
Although we have suffered for years from a flawed foreign policy and we were already in a recession before the attacks, the severity of these events has forced many of us to reassess our foreign and domestic policies. Hopefully, positive changes will come of this.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:9
It is just as well that the economy was already in a recession for 6 months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise the temptation would have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the source of a significant economic downturn.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:10
A major debate over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this crisis. Dealing with the shortcomings of our policies of the past is essential. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence gathering. That, we must admit, failed. This tells us a problem exists. There are shortcomings with our $320 billion DOD budget that did not provide the protection Americans expect. Obviously, a proper response to the terrorists requires sound judgment in order to prevent further suffering of the innocent or foolishly bringing about a worldwide conflict.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:11
One of the key responsibilities of the Federal Government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:12
What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine the survival of our Republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our policy. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option. Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly enhances our national security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:13
The special interests that were already lined up at the public trough should not be permitted to use the ongoing crisis as an opportunity to demand even more benefits. Let us all remember why the U.S. Congress was established, what our responsibilities are, and what our oath of office means.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:14
It has been reported that since the 9– 11 attacks, Big Government answers have gained in popularity and people fearful for their security have looked to the Federal Government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at the highest level in decades. This may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:15
Even with this massive rush to embrace all the bailouts offered up by Washington, a growing number of Americans are rightfully offended by the enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and wealthy special interests seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:16
In one area, though, a very healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all Americans, especially those still flying commercial airlines, now know that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens best protect our homes because it is impossible for the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner’s ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:17
Our government’s ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes has indoctrinated us all, pilots, passengers and airline owners, to believe we should never resist hijackers. This sets up perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights just as they did on September 11.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:18
The people of this country now realize more than ever their own responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9–11, and more Americans are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before. This is all good.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:19
Sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and security has been socialized in spite of the fact that security procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9–11 were not compromised. The problem did not come from failure to follow the FAA rules. The problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans were wisely assuming they better be ready to protect themselves when necessary.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:20
This attitude is healthy, practical, and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. Government. That, of course, is the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:21
Another positive result of last year’s attack was the uniting of many Americans in an effort to deal with many problems this country faces. This applies more to the people who reflect true patriotism than it does to some of the politicians and special interests who took advantage of this situation. If this renewed energy and sense of unity could be channeled correctly, much good could come of it, if misdirected, actual harm would result.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:22
Give less credit to the Washington politicians who sing the songs of patriotism but used the crisis to pursue their endless personal goal to gain more political power; but the greatest combination should be directed toward the special interests’ lobbyists who finance the politicians in order to secure their power by using patriotism as a cover and a crisis as a golden opportunity. Indeed, those who are using the crisis to promote their own agenda are many. There is no doubt, as many have pointed out, our country changed dramatically with the horror that hit us on 9–11.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:23
The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War; yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year’s attacks made us feel vulnerable because it was clear that our Federal Government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault, and the anthrax scare certainly did not help to diminish that fear.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:24
Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government’s intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government’s threat to our liberty? The most significant and dangerous result of last year’s attacks has been the bold expansion of the Federal police state in our enhanced international role as the world’s policeman. Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I am convinced that the people’s support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:25
As time progresses, the full impact of homeland security and the unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments will become apparent, and a large majority of our Americans will appropriately ask why did the Congress do it. Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:26
The wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when protecting individual liberty becomes our goal rather than the erroneous assumption that solutions must always be in conflict with liberty and that sacrificing some liberty is to be expected during trying times. This is not necessary.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:27
Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the United States Government by claiming that those who talk of lost liberty serve to erode our national unity and give ammunition to America’s enemies and only aid terrorists. This dangerous assumption is, in the eyes of our top law enforcement officials, that perceived disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act of terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:28
The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed towards those who, Heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be about, protecting liberty, and that includes the right of free expression.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:29
Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming that if they are not with us, they are against us, which leaves no room for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with dozens of nations around the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:30
Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to the enemy? The Attorney General’s comments suggest just that, and it has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We are unable to guarantee protection for outside threats and may be approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our liberties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:31
No matter how sincere and well motivated the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill-advised it will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that here in Washington there is little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials and all that they do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:32
The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the U.N., is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We were not supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9–11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaeda members captured or killed is uncertain. Also, the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we will probably not know the details of what went on for years to come.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:33
I wonder how many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of Members could care less, remembering innocent American civilians who were slaughtered in New York and Washington. But a policy that shows no concern for the innocent will magnify our problems rather than lessen them. The hard part to understand in all this is that Saudi Arabia probably had more to do with these attacks than did Afghanistan. But then again, who wants to offend our oil partners?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:34
Our sterile approach to the bombing with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of events of September 11. Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:35
Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a very dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control since China will not allow a clearcut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan’s interest over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:36
Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems unlikely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to correctly stop all funding of this organization. The thought of relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:37
Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our current military operations into many other countries are fraught with great risk, risk of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes of terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do nothing to enhance the security and the safety of the American people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:38
Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals’ claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia, as we have Afghanistan and Iraq for 12 years, will only incite more hatred towards the United States and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:39
Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America’s defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under U.N. authority, should be apparent to us all. Stuart Eizenstat, Under Secretary of Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Trade Committee October 13, 1997. He said, “One of five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region is to continue support for U.S. companies and the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry Central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based, multiethnic government.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:40
This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions. It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal, the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies has not changed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:41
Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council, very conveniently, did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:42
The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There is a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long term.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:43
CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term serious problems with that nation that persists even today. Could oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks on the United States, and yet little is done about it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:44
There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained. Russia’s interest in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would have us believe, and Russia’s active involvement in a spreading regional conflict should be expected.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:45
An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:46
U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years. We have been in Korea for that long and we have been in Japan and Europe even longer. But the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in a humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:47
Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of the Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford. Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so. We are building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in that region.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:48
Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia, a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution to this ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors’ oil fields.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:49
The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying, “Finally, we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the greater good.” The greater good? I just wonder who they are referring to when they talk about the greater good.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:50
If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III. How a major publication can actually print an article that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to comprehend.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:51
Two countries armed with nuclear weapons on the verge of war in the region, and we are being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by seizing the Saudi oil fields? Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred that drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic act of 9–11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face here at home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:52
Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done, since the American people expected it and Congress and the administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their supporters is obviously in order and, hopefully, that has been achieved. But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism throughout the world, whether it is related to September 11 or not, is neither a legitimate nor a wise policy. H.J. Res. 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us, not every terrorist in the entire world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:53
Let there be no doubt, for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter. That was the case when we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. He was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against the Soviet army. Of course, now he is our avowed enemy. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding of those who attacked the United States opens a Pandora’s box in our foreign policy commitments.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:54
If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:55
How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayers’ money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes, not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:56
I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:57
There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful attack of our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational, yet efficient, evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise our freedoms.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:58
We have had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:59
The founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early Presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th century that our Nation went off to far-away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:60
There is no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The overcommitment of a country’s military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:61
The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is the buildup of animosity of the nation currently at the top of the heap, which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker nations. We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal editorial clearly symbolizes this arrogance.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:62
The traditional American foreign policy of the founders and our Presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points: one, friendship with all nations desiring of such; two, as much free trade and travel with those countries as possible; three, avoiding entangling alliances.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:63
This is good advice. The framers also understood that the important powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be placed in the hands of Congress. This principle has essentially been forgotten.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:64
The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. Congress continues to allows its authority to be transferred to the executive branch as well as to the international agencies such as the U.N., NAFTA, IMF and the WTO. Through executive orders, our Presidents routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:65
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our “friendship” with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today’s circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:66
After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that we could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was hoped we would start minding our own business, save some money, and reduce the threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has happened. Without any international competition for superpower status, our commitments have grown and spread so that today we provide better military protection to Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we do for New York and Washington.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:67
I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism. Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to play the role of the world’s only superpower. Recently we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending restraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS to fly over to protect our air spaces.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 1:68
The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commitment ourselves endlessly to being the world’s policemen. If we do not reassess our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under very undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home. A constitutional policy and informed relations of nonintervention is the policy that will provide America the greatest and best national defense.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause

!DATE:
29 January 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 335 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:2
The success of Catholic schools has been remarkable. Catholic schools operating in the inner-city have been able to provide an excellent education to students written off by the educational establishment as “unteachable.” Contrary to the claims of their critics, Catholic schools do not turn away large numbers of children in order to limit their enrollment to the “best and the brightest.” In fact, a few years ago the Archdiocese of New York offered to enroll all students who had been expelled from New York’s public schools! Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368) which would help more parents afford to send their children to Catholic, or other religious schools, by providing them with a $3,000 tax credit for K–12 education expenses.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:3
While I join with the sponsors of this legislation in praising Catholic schools, I am disturbed by the language explicitly endorsing the goals of the United States Catholic Conference. The Catholic Conference is an organization devoted to spreading and advancing Catholicism. While the Conference may advance other social goods through its work, these purposes are secondary to its primary function of advancing the Catholic faith. This is especially true in the case of Catholic schools which were founded and are operated with the explicit purpose of integrating Catholic doctrine into K–12 education.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favorites among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools were singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:7
Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 2:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join the sponsors of H. Res. 335 in their admiration for the work of Catholic schools. However, I also have reservations about the language singling out the religious goals of one faith for praise.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services Committee, Capital Markets Subcommittee

!DATE:
Monday, February 4, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. Chairman, the collapse of Enron has so far been the cause of numerous hearings, as well as calls for increased federal control over the financial markets and the accounting profession. For example, legislation has been introduced to force all publicly traded companies to submit to federal audits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:2
I fear that many of my well-meaning colleagues are reacting to media reports portraying Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. It is a mistake for Congress to view the Enron collapse as a justification for more government regulation. Publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosure rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything? The real problem with SEC rules is that they give investors a false sense of security, a sense that the government is protecting them from dangerous investments.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:3
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated economy, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:4
The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluation: Fed expansion of money and credit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:5
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market- not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level of the markets.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:6
Therefore, if Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:7
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:8
One such project, a power plant in India, played a big part in Enron’s demise. The company had trouble selling the power to local officials, adding to its huge $618 million loss for the third quarter of 2001. Former president Clinton worked hard to secure the India deal for Enron in the mid-90s; not surprisingly, his 1996 campaign received $100,000 from the company. Yet the media makes no mention of this favoritism. Clinton may claim he was “protecting” tax dollars, but those tax dollars should never have been sent to India in the first place.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:9
Enron similarly benefited from another federal boondoggle, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC operates much like the Ex-Im Bank, providing taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for overseas projects, often in countries with shaky governments and economies. An OPIC spokesman claims the organization paid more than one billion dollars for 12 projects involving Enron, dollars that now may never be repaid. Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers. The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most of my colleagues are busy devising ways to “save” investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to DC-based politicians of both parties. It’s a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 3:10
This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
February 6 2002
Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services Committee, February 6 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on the Argentine crisis



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. Chairman, the recent economic difficulties in Argentina provide many valuable lessons for policy makers, both in America and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, early signals indicate that many are drawing the wrong lesson from this crisis.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:2
In the last several months, too many commentators and policy makers have pointed the finger of blame for Argentina’s economic crisis at deregulation, free markets, and free trade. The logical conclusion of this analysis is that Argentina should embrace protectionism, increased welfare spending, regulation, and maybe even return to the days when all major industry in the country was nationalized. However, those familiar with the economic history of the twentieth century will find this analysis shocking- after all, if state control of the economy was the path to prosperity, then Cuba and North Korea would be the world’s richest countries and leading economies!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:3
In fact, Mr. Chairman, Argentina does not represent an exception to the laws of economics. Rather, Argentina’s economic collapse is but one more example of the folly of government intervention in the economy done to benefit powerful special interests at the expense of the Argentine people and the American taxpayer. The primary means by which the federal government forces American taxpayers to underwrite the destruction of the Argentine economy is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which enjoys a $37 billion line of credit provided with U.S. Treasury funds.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:4
Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:5
According to our colleague, Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:6
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Only three years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts taxpayers on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use the taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents access to capital.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:7
Even if they are not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:8
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and an economic crisis, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:9
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF, and it is simply immoral to take money form hard-working Americas to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:10
The only constituency for the IMF are the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds- taxpayer funds- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Chairman, the damage inflicted by the IMF on Argentina is immense and inexcusable. This is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. However, perhaps some good can come out of this debacle if it causes Congress to at last rethink America’s foolish participation in the IMF. This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to withdraw America from the IMF. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by working with me to end America’s support for the IMF.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 7, 2002

!TITLE:
Stimulating The Economy




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker: Dealing with the slumping economy will prove every bit as challenging to Congress as fighting terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:2
No one challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be sacrificed. Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve our freedoms and security will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we’ve pledge to protect- our constitutionally protected liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:3
A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used to suppress price inflation and to help the economy, without realizing the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy was greatly harmed. Legislation, per se, is not necessarily harmful, but if it reflects bad policy, it is. The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and represents a serious violation of people’s rights.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:4
Today, we hear from strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems and, over the past year, lowered short-term interest rates an unprecedented 11 times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6 1/2 % to 1 3/4 %. This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more government but less. It is precisely too much government, and especially manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve, that precipitated the economic downturn in the first place. Increasing that which caused the recession can’t possibly, at the same time, be the solution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:5
The magnitude of the distortions of the 1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the Fed, on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide, suggests that this slowdown will not abort quickly.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:6
The Japanese economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of recovery. The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they are growing, it is a benefit to all, but in a contraction, globalism based on fiat money and international government assures that most economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:7
Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of course, fails to address the reality of a record-high $7.5 trillion-and rising consumer debt. “Today, a party- tomorrow an economic hangover” has essentially been our philosophy for decades. But there’s always a limit to deficit spending, whether it’s private or governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in one form or another later on.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:8
Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron stocks were brought back to earth with a shattering correction. There’s a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial sector.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:9
In recessions, to remain solvent, consumers ought to tighten their belts, pay off debt, and save. In a free market, this would lower market interest rates to once again make investments attractive. The confusing aspect of today’s economy is that consumers and even businesses continue profligate borrowing, in spite of problems on the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve, creating massive amounts of new credit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:10
This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed sharply upward. The central bank is then forced to raise interest rates, as they did in 1979 when the rates hit 21%.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:11
But even before any need to tighten, interest rates may rise or not fall as expected. This has just happened in 2001. Even with Fed fund rates at 40-year lows, the 10 and 30-year rates have not fallen accordingly. Many corporate-bond rates have stayed high, and credit-card rates have stayed in double digits. This happens because the market discounts for debt quality and future depreciation of the dollar.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:12
The Fed can’t control these rates, and they can’t control where the new credit they create goes. This means that resorting to, or trusting in, the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate congressional spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record default for U.S. corporate bonds. Worldwide, $110 billion of bonds were defaulted on last year.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:13
Monetary inflation is the chief cause of recessions. Therefore, we must never expect that this same policy will reverse the economic dislocations it has caused.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:14
For over a year, the Fed has been massively inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done much good. This continuous influx of new credit instead delays the correction that must eventually come- the liquidation of bad debt, and the reduction of overcapacity. This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest rates around 1%. The market must be left to eliminate the misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:15
There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the Congress could implement. All taxes ought to be lowered, government spending should be reduced, controls on labor costs should be removed, and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:16
We should not expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide that free-market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare state and fiat money. Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it. Welfarism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:17
Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and assuming the role of world policeman, while ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens. In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than Adam Smith recommended. The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:18
Sadly lacking in the Congress is a conviction that free markets- that is truly free markets- and sound money can provide the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people. Instead, we operate with a system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a growing number of people, while rewarding special interests and steadily undermining the principles of liberty. Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:19
Since rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes the power and influence of politicians, it’s difficult to get political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that the Congress pursues only those goals permitted under the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:20
Instead of moving in that direction of freer markets, the more problems the western countries face, the more government programs are demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan as their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy increases. But in China and Russia, the horrible conditions that communism causes, ironically, made these two countries move toward freer markets when they encountered serious troubles. Even the central banks of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while western central banks are selling.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:21
The reason for this is that the conventional wisdom of the west’s political and economic leaders is that there’s a third way that is best, or an alternative to the extremes of too much freedom- laissez faire capitalism- and too little freedom- authoritarianism, socialism or communism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:22
But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in the market on principle or argue against it. There’s always the hope that government will be prudent and limit its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates several new problems in addition while prompting even more government intervention.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:23
Here in the United States we have seen the process at work for several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction in our personal freedoms. This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems requiring even more of our attention and funding.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:24
This system leads to a huge bureaucratic government, manipulated by politicians, and generates an army of special interests that flood the system with money and demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these powerful special interests must be satisfied.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:25
This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They would regulate access to the members of Congress, and dictate how private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty, while ignoring the real problem- a government that ignores the Constitution naturally passes out largesse. Even under today’s conditions, where money talks in Washington, if enough members would refuse either to accept or be influenced by the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:26
Most people recognize the horrible mess that Washington is and how campaign money and lobbyists influence the system. But the reforms proposed only deal with the symptoms and not the root cause. There is sharp disagreement in what to do about it, but no one denies the existence of the problem. It=s just hard for most to acknowledge that the welfare state is out of control and shouldn’t be in existence anyway. Therefore, they misdirect our attention toward campaign-finance reform rather than deal with the real problem.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:27
Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfarism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It’s happened many times already, and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:28
This is where I disagree.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:29
Every recession in the last 30 years, since the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, debt and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each cycle, the government got bigger and more intrusive.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:30
Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This is not tolerated, because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes, more regulations and fewer freedoms. It’s tolerated because most people believe that their financial and economic security is the responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human face on capitalism. Extreme capitalism, i.e. freedom, we have been told is just as dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our system will continue in its inexorable march toward fascist-type socialism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:31
However, support for today’s policies is built on the fallacy that material wealth and general prosperity are best achieved with this third way- interventionism- while avoiding the dangers of communism and socialism. This is coupled with the firm conviction that the sacrifice of freedom will be minimal and limited and that the very rich can be adequately taxed and regulated to help the poor.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:32
This is a fallacy because more freedom will be lost than is expected, and the productivity of the market will suffer more than anticipated. Once this realization occurs, it will suddenly be discovered that the apparent wealth of the nation is a lot less than calculated.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:33
An economy that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case. Owners of the dot-com companies or Enron stocks know what it’s like to feel rich one day and very poor the next. This is not a unique experience but one that should be expected and is predictable.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:34
Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust their values periodically with sudden devaluations, which destroy the pseudo-wealth of the middle class and poor. The wealthy, more often than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary system. However, they can’t protect from the insidious loss of liberty that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:35
Our dollar system is quite similar to the Argentine and Mexican peso systems that periodically make sudden and painful adjustments. But ours is different in one respect, because the dollar is accepted as the reserve currency of the world- the paper gold of the world financial system. This gives us license to inflate- that is, steal- for longer periods of time, and we can avoid sudden and sharp devaluations since the world’s currencies are “defined” by our dollar. But this doesn’t permit the ultimate devaluation that will bring a significant increase in the cost of living to all Americans, but hurt the poor and the middle class the most.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:36
This special status of the dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse. Since our bubble can last longer due to our perceived military and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic powerhouse of the world, we’re able to borrow more than anyone else. Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums, as our current account deficit soars out of sight. The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend, even in recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen. Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more borrowing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:37
Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably, would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous process of monetary debasement.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:38
Today, few decry the debt, except for the purpose of political demagoguery when convenient. The concern about deficits expressed by liberal big spenders does not merit credibility, but even conservative spenders now are less likely to decry deficits and some actually praise them.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:39
Just recently, the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) announced in a national press release: “National debt can lead to a growing economy,” claiming government borrowing, “produces steady long-term growth, greater security, and a higher standard of living.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:40
This wouldn’t be so bad if it came from a typically Keynesian think tank. But this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives whose goal is to generate government revenues, painlessly of course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore personal liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:41
What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing always takes money from productive enterprises, while placing these funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special interests. Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:42
Those who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are merely supporting a system of big government, whether it’s welfare or warfare, or both.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:43
Debt, per se, is not the only issue. It’s also because debt always encourages the growth in the size of government. Allowing it to be seductively financed through inflation or borrowing is what makes it so bad. Just because it’s less painful at first and payment is delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:44
If liberty is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The principle of authoritarian government is endorsed whenever deficits are legitimatised. All those who love liberty must reject the notion that deficits and debt perform a useful function.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:45
It’s possible this recession may end in a few months as the optimists predict, but if it does, our problems are only delayed. The fundamental correction will still be necessary to preserve the productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our ways, the financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The big correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing with rapid disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. The longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the threat to our freedoms and institutions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:46
Since we’re moving toward the big correction, we’re going to see a lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds like Social Security and mean a lower standard living for most people. The routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses and medical care will never keep up with the needs or demands. Eventually we will have to give up, and a new economic system will have to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:47
Wealth- the product of labor, investment and savings- can never be substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first take away from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth; both can destroy it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:48
The dilemma is that early on, and sometimes for many years as we have experienced, transferring wealth and printing money seem to help more than it hurts. That’s because the wealth is not real, and the trust funds, like Social Security hold no actual wealth. A pension fund with dot-com and Enron stock held no wealth either. Unfortunately, the stocks and bonds remaining are worth a lot less than most people realize.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:49
The Social Security system depends on the value of the dollar and on future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants. But this policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power and that there won’t be enough young people to tax in the future. Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects to get to the next town. It tragically doesn’t work.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:50
The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it’s fighting the war on terrorism, acting as the world’s policeman, or solving the problems of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are what made us the richest nation in all of history, but this we will lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:51
The Dangers We Face
Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the knowledge that we are now vulnerable from outside attack is shared by all Americans. The danger is clear and present and everyone wants something done about it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:52
There is, however, no unanimity as to the cause of the attacks, who is responsible, and what exactly has to be done. The President has been given congressional authority to use force “against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” A large majority of Americans are quite satisfied that his efforts have been carried out with due diligence.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:53
But a growing number of Americans are becoming aware that anti-terrorist efforts, both at home and abroad, will have unintended consequences that few anticipated and that, in time, will not be beneficial to U.S. security and will undermine our liberties here at home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:54
Let me name a few potential dangers we face.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:55
1. There’s a danger that the definition of terrorism will become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements of conflicts will become a thing of the past. Acts of terror occur on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our response in Afghanistan sets the standard.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:56
2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret House Joint Resolution 64- the resolution granting authority to the President to use force to retaliate against only “those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” Congress did not authorize force against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals involved were not directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. It would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress uprisings throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find displeasing but that did not participate in the 9-11 attacks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:57
3. An imprecise definition of who is or who is not a terrorist may be used to justify our massively expanding military might throughout the world. For every accused terrorist, there will be a declared “freedom fighter.” To always know the difference is more than one can expect. Our record in the past 50 years for choosing the right side in the many conflicts in which we have been involved is poor, to say the least. Many times, there is no “right side,” from the viewpoint of American security, and our unnecessary entanglements have turned out to be the greater threat to our security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:58
4. There’s risk that our massive deployment of troops in the many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons and both of whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:59
5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we’ve committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we’ll be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia- countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to U.S. oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:60
6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:61
7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:62
8. A danger exists that the United States is becoming a police state. Just a few decades ago, this would have been unimaginable. As originally designed, in the American republic, police powers were the prerogative of the states and the military was not to be involved. Unfortunately today, most Americans welcome the use of military troops to police our public places, especially the airports. Even before 9-11, more than 80,000 armed federal bureaucrats patrolled the countryside, checking for violations of federal laws and regulations. That number since 9-11 has increased by nearly 50%- and it will not soon shrink. A military takeover of homeland security looks certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history, and this is a threat the Congress should not ignore.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:63
9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of the past. Even before 9-11, there were attacks on the privacy of all Americans- for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and “Know Your Customer” type banking regulations. The need for enforcement powers for the DEA and the IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the Fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug and tax laws, and now with anti-terrorist legislation sailing through Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this trend will not be easy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:64
10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny by all levels of government in the name of providing security. Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist attack.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:65
11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are difficult to ascertain but could be quite significant. Although the recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money spent and the effect of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be further pressured to pursue a dangerous monetary inflation. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar and certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control should not be lightly dismissed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:66
12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests are motivated to increase their demands. It’s a convenient excuse to push for the benefits they were already looking for. Domestically, this includes everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, travel agents, state and local governments, and anyone who can justify a related need. It’s difficult for the military-industrial complex to hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more dependency, greater deficits and military confrontations that are unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:67
13. Understandably, not much empathy is being expressed for members of the Taliban that we now hold as prisoners. The antipathy is easily understood. It’s not only that as a nation we should set a good example under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but if we treat the Taliban prisoners inhumanly, there is the danger it will surely be used as an excuse to treat U.S. prisoners in the same manner in the future. This certainly is true when we use torture to extract information, which is now being advised. Not only does that reflect on our own society as a free nation, but torture notoriously rarely generates reliable information. This danger should not be ignored. Besides, we have nothing to gain by mistreating prisoners who may have no knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. The idea that those captured are “terrorists” responsible for the 9-11 attacks begs the obvious question.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:68
Optimism or Pessimism?
Many realists who see the world as it really is and who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the tide against liberty. Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe next month or next year or at some later date, I’m convinced that, in time, the love for liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it’s recognized that government has no guarantee of future success, promoting dependency and security can quickly lose it allure.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:69
The Roman poet, Horace, two thousand years ago spoke of adversity: “Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of prosperity would have lain dormant.” Since I believe we will be a lot less prosperous in the not-too-distant future, we will have plenty of opportunity to elicit the talents of many Americans.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:70
Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20 th Century, advised optimism:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:71
    In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to figure out the requirements of liberty and the character to walk in its ways.  This is a scattered fellowship of individuals- mostly unknown to you or me- bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the plain truth of things.




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:72
He was convinced that this remnant would rise to the occasion and do the necessary things to restore virtue and excellence to a people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:73
Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of justice and truth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 5:74
We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn

!DATE:
7 February 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 13, 2002


!TITLE:
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent revelations regarding Enron’s political influence have once again brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who where involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of “good government” via campaign finance reform!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:2
Mr. Speaker, this so-called “reform” legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:3
The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis : “At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:4
The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:5
This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people’s constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:6
It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by “investing” in politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:7
Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government- legally or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:8
There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government.  Every individual, bank, or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense- since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power- such as between labor and business- is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:9
Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising freedom of political speech by regulating political money.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:10
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:11
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process- which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:12
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:13
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending- a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:14
Mr. Speaker, the freedoms of the American people should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:15
The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ACampaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:16
I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits.  I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 7:17
Campaign-Finance Reform
A Constitutional Analysis
by Herbert W. Titus



      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:18
   1. Introduction
   2. Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance



      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:19
   3. Reform Legislation Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:20
   4. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press
   5. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:21
   6. Conclusion




      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:22
      I. Introduction
      To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:23
      The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:24
      Hamilton’s warning has proved prophetic in the case of campaign-finance reform. As the debate swirls around the impact of such reform measures on the freedom of speech and association, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal election campaigns is being ignored. Yet, that question would have been hotly debated and quickly answered in America’s founding era in light of the constitutional text carefully circumscribing Congress’s authority in relation to federal elections. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 68, I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Sections 814-826 and II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed. 1891.)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:25
      Additionally, the issue of constitutional authority would have been examined, in the first instance, by Congress and the president without their being bound by previous court opinions. It had already been well established that each representative, each senator, and the president and his cabinet had a constitutional duty, independent of the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them. As President Andrew Jackson observed, in his 1832 veto message rejecting a bill extending the charter of the Bank of the United States:


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:26
      It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:27
      It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:28
      II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation
      According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:29
      The threshold question concerning any campaign-finance reform bill is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regulate federal election campaigns . Such authority is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress. Therefore, Congress may not justify any campaign-finance reform measure on the grounds that its purpose is to reform the financing of campaigns for federal office. Thus, campaign-finance reform laws may be constitutionally justified only if enacted as a means to achieve some other purpose that is constitutionally authorized. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:30
      The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:31
      As for congressional elections, Article I, Section 4 limits Congress to the making of regulations prescribing the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.” As for the election of the president and vice president Article II, Section 1 limits Congress only to “determin[ing] the time of choosing the [presidential] electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” (Emphasis added.) As for the place and manner of the selection of the presidential electors, and hence the president and vice president of the United States, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution determines the place and, according to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures choose the manner by which the electors are chosen. ( Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. --, 148 L.Ed.2d 388, 2000)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:32
      Given these express restrictions upon congressional power over federal elections, it was not until the 1930s that Congress, with court approval, began to assume broad powers over federal elections, including the regulation of campaigns for the office of the president. ( Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 1934) At the time of America’s founding, and extending for a period of nearly 135 years, such was not the case.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:33
      As for congressional elections, Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 60, that congressional authority was “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places , the manner of elections,” and did not, for example, extend to the qualifications of voters. Likewise, Joseph Story noted that congressional authority over federal elections was explicitly confined to regulations concerning the mechanics and integrity of the election process itself, and did not extend to the integrity of government generally or the relative power of voters. ( I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Section 826, 5th ed., 1891)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:34
      As for presidential elections, Hamilton noted that the detailed plan set forth in the original constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that the president would not be elected according to rules promulgated by Congress, lest the president be too dependent upon that body. ( Federalist No. 68 ) Likewise, Justice Story asserted that both the original Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment immunized the “mode of election of the President and Vice-President” from congressional regulation, limiting congressional authority only to setting the “time” of the election. ( II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed., 1891)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:35
      In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:36
      As for congressional regulation of the campaigns of candidates for the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, four justices of the United States Supreme Court, in 1921, struck down a federal law limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections, observing:


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:37
      We find no support in reason or authority for the argument that because the offices were created by the Constitution, Congress has some indefinite, undefined power over elections for Senators and Representatives not derived from [Article I] Section 4. ( Newberry v. United States , 256 U.S. 232, 249, 1921)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:38
      From this constitutional premise, these justices ruled that the “authority to regulate the manner of holding... [elections] gives no right to control” things that are “prerequisites to elections or [that] may affect their outcomes - voters, education, means of transportation, health, public discussion , immigration, private animosities, even the face and figure of the candidate....” ( Id., 256 U.S. at 257 [emphasis added]) Therefore, they concluded that Congress had authority only to regulate congressional elections to protect voters from fraud { Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382-88 (1880)}, from intimidation { Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 660-62 (1884)} and from other acts designed to protect the integrity of the election process, as such. ( Newberry v. United States, supra, 256 U.S. at 255)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:39
      This was the original understanding, as set forth in the constitutional text and as stated by Hamilton and Story. Congressional regulation of political campaigns, beginning in the 1930’s, disregards the founding principle of limited federal authority. Instead, such regulation is based upon the assumption that Congress is a legislature of plenary power, rather than enumerated powers as stated in Article I, Section 1.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:40
      (See Burroughs v. United States, supra, 290 U.S. at 545.) Such precedents as these should be rejected, lest Congress overstep the limited authority granted to it by the sovereign people of the United States.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:41
      III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism
      Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:42
      According to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures, not Congress, determine the “manner” of the election of presidential electors who, in turn, are governed by the Twelfth Amendment as to the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president of the United States. The only constitutionally prescribed role for the Senate in that election process is to serve as an objective observer of the final count of votes cast by the presidential electors. The House also is limited to the role of an objective observer, unless on final count of the electors’ votes, no person achieves a majority of votes for president. Then, and only then, may the House intervene in the manner of electing a president, casting one vote per state until a candidate achieves a majority. As for the vice president, both houses of Congress are limited to serving as objective observers of the final tally of votes, except that the Senate plays the same role as the House if no candidate for vice president receives a majority.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:43
      This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:44
      Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:45
      By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:46
      Additionally, campaign-finance regulations applied to the election of members of Congress also intrude upon the power of their electors who, like presidential electors, are state officers. According to Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment, the qualifications of the electors of United States representatives and senators are set by state law, not by federal law. ( In re Green, supra, 134 U.S. 379; Ray v. Blair, supra, 343 U.S. at 224-25) The Constitution did not grant to Congress any power to determine the eligibility of their electors, and thus insulated those electors from having their power reduced, or otherwise affected, by their representatives in Congress.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:47
      Although no current campaign-finance reform bill sets the qualifications of electors for Congress, each one does, like its predecessors, impose a uniform system of campaign rules designed to govern the power to be exercised by citizens at the voting booth. Some of the measures, like the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the Senate and Shays-Meehan bill pending before the House, extend that uniform system, exercising power over the state, district and local committees of political parties as well as the national committees of those parties. While such laws do not change state laws governing voter eligibility, as such, they do change the power exercised by those eligible voters. Indeed, one of the stated purposes of campaign reform legislation is to “equalize” the power of citizens “to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 25-26) Such a purpose, however, is illegitimate. It imposes a national uniform standard limiting the power of voters to the detriment of a constitutionally prescribed system of state diversity.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:48
      In his Commentaries on the Constitution , Justice Story observed that the framers deliberately chose not to impose a standard of “equality” among the voters of the several states, but rather to accommodate a “mixed system, embracing and representing and combining distinct interests, classes and opinions.” ( I Story , Commentaries on the Constitution Sections 583-84, 5th ed., 1891) More recently, in a column published in the September 5, 1999, issue of The Washington Post, columnist George Will reminded his fellow Americans that the Constitution does not authorize one federal election, but many. All current campaign-finance reform measures disregard this decentralized federal structure governing elections to Congress and to the presidency and, for that reason, are unconstitutional.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:49
      IV. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press
      At the heart of campaign-finance reform legislation, is the desire of Congress to eliminate even the “appearance of corruption” to the end that the people have confidence in the current system of representative government. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27, 1976) At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech so also do campaign-finance reform laws.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:50
      In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:51
      Since Buckley, the proponents of ever more stringent limits upon campaign contributions have emphasized that such laws are needed not to prevent actual government corruption, but to eliminate all appearances of such corruption. Indeed, these proponents have contended that the elimination of the appearance of corruption is compelling because, if the appearance is allowed to remain, people will lose faith in our current system of government and their confidence in their elected leaders, such faith and confidence lying at the heart of a healthy democracy.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:52
      This same theme has been struck by leading proponents of reform in the House of Representatives. Four years ago, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt urged the adoption of more restrictive measures “for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” even at the expense of the freedom of speech. (Gibbs, “The Wake-Up Call,” Time, p. 25, Feb. 3, 1997) Representative Gephardt has not changed his mind, continuing his adamant support of the speech-restrictive Shays-Meehan bill to this day. (Mitchell, “2 Election Bills Go to the House Floor,” The New York Times , June 29, 2001) Indeed, Senator John McCain has not changed his mind either. Having urged in 1997 the enactment of a law placing limits on public policy organizations’ political advertising in the waning days of an election campaign, and thus calling off the political “attack dogs” (NBC News, Meet the Press, Feb. 3, 1997), Senator McCain is waging an all-out war to make sure that his version of campaign-finance reform passes the House. (Shenon, “House Critics Call McCain a Bully on Campaign Bill,” The New York Times, July 9, 2001) As McCain’s Democrat colleague, Russell Feingold, put it upon the introduction of Shays-Meehan in the Senate in 1999: “The prevalence – no – the dominance of money in our system of elections and our legislature will…cause them to crumble.” (Cong. Rec. S422, 423, daily ed., Jan. 19, 1999)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:53
      What these advocates of campaign-finance reform really want is to protect incumbent office holders from the people. Under the guise of preserving the present governmental structure, they support campaign-finance reform measures that are nothing more than “incumbent-protection” legislation that would make entrenched politicians even less responsive to the people. (See e.g., James C. Miller, Monopoly Politics 88-101, Hoover Inst. 1999.)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:54
      Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:55
      Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:56
      Had the court applied the same standard to the Campaign Reform Act of 1971, that law, too, would have been cast into the dustbin of history. For, campaign-finance reform laws - like seditious libel laws - exist solely to protect the present government and her leaders from the people. While this goal may be permissible in England where the Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the nation, it has no place in America where, as James Madison put it in the 1800 Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the “people, not the government, possess absolute sovereignty.”


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:57
      Campaign-finance reform also constitutes a direct attack on the First Amendment freedom of the press. By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign, as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign, these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government “censorial power over the people,” instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 275.)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:58
      Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:




              !CITE:
              2002 Ron Paul 7:59
              The liberty of the press...consists of laying...no previous restraints on publications.... Every freeman has the undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press.
              (IV W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52,1769 [emphasis added]) 




      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:60
      Campaign-finance reform, then, is not progressive, but reactive, turning the clock back to the days of the English Star Chamber that enforced the King’s rules governing the conduct of elections for the ostensible purpose of keeping his realm free of moral and political corruption. ( Sources of Our Liberties 130, 242, Perry, ed., American Bar Found., 1978) A free nation may only be preserved when the people have the liberty of the press to censor their own speech about the government and about candidates for governmental office, not when the government has censorship power of the people, as campaign-finance reform inevitably dictates.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:61
      V. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble
      The right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to associate freely together to consult for the common good, subject only to the requirement that their association be “peaceable.” Any law that is not designed to keep the physical peace of the community is, therefore, unconstitutional. No campaign-finance reform measure has ever been designed to keep the “physical peace”; rather, each is designed to keep the “political peace;” a constitutionally impermissible goal abridging the right of the people to assemble.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:62
      Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:63
      At the heart of the right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to choose how they are going to associate with one another “for the ‘common advancement of political beliefs.’” ( Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121-22, 1981) This right extends to associations of people for the purpose of electing persons to federal office who share those political beliefs. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57, 1976) Indeed, as Justice Clarence Thomas recently observed: “Political associations allow citizens to pool their resources and make their advocacy more effective and such efforts are fully protected by the First Amendment.” ( Colo. Rep. Fed. Camp. Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 135 Led2d 795, 818, 1996, Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:64
      Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:65
      Both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan exploit this distinction in their attempt to muzzle political advertisements in the final weeks of an election campaign, claiming that issue advocacy becomes express candidate advocacy when conducted during the crucial weeks before election day. In so doing, both bills seriously undermine the people’s right to choose for themselves how they will associate to advance or defeat certain measures or to promote specific principles of public policy. Constraining the people who speak out on the issues in conjunction with an election campaign may make for a more “orderly” political process, but people are not horses or mules to be hooked up to the political bandwagons of government-subsidized incumbent politicians. Additionally, limits on so-called “soft money” to political parties are really designed to place incumbent office holders in control of the political parties whose name they sport. By placing controls on how political parties may raise and spend money, “independent” politicians like John McCain seek to transmute America’s political parties into political eunuchs, impotent to affect the outcome of any election.


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:66
      Compounding these intrusions upon the people’s right to choose how and with whom they will associate to advance their political agenda, all campaign-finance reform measures depend upon forced disclosure of the names and addresses of even the smallest contributor to an election campaign. Such required public disclosure hearkens back to the days when the English monarchy required the publication of the names and addresses of all printers of all publications circulated throughout the realm. Requiring disclosure of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns departs from an American tradition and practice that dates back to the founding of the nation and from a long line of cases affording constitutional protection of anonymity in associative relationships. ( McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334, 1995; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 1958) Forced divulgence of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns exposes people not only to retaliation by employers and union leaders, whose political choices are not the same as their employees and their members, but it also exposes people who support challengers to the inevitable cold shoulder of a re-elected incumbent. ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 237, Burger, C.J., dissenting)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:67
      Keeping the political peace, as campaign-finance reform is designed to do, exacts a high price, costing the people their precious liberty of choosing how much energy and resources they wish to devote to politics. While full freedom of association, including anonymity, risks corruption of the political process, nothing is more corrosive of that process than placing election campaigns in the discretionary hands of unelected bureaucrats. (Miller, Monopoly Politics 95-100, 1999)


      !CITE:
      2002 Ron Paul 7:68
      VI. Conclusion
      Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people. 



2002 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 13, 2002

!TITLE:
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:3
By artificially deflating the price of gold, federal intervention in the gold market can reduce the values of private gold holdings, adversely affecting millions of investors. These investors rely on their gold holdings to protect them from the effects of our misguided fiat currency system. Federal dealings in gold can also adversely affect those countries with large gold mines, many of which are currently ravished by extreme poverty. Mr. Speaker, restoring a vibrant gold market could do more than any foreign aid program to restore economic growth to those areas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange-Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise .” [Emphasis added].


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:6
Mr. Speaker, in order to allow my colleagues to learn more about this issue, I am enclosing “All that Glitters is Not Gold” by Kelly Patricia O’Meara, an investigative reporter from Insight magazine. This article explains in detail GATA’s allegations of federal involvement in the gold market.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:7
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:8
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:9
All That Glitters Is Not Gold
By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
Insight Magazine
March 4, 2002, edition
Even though Enron employees and the company’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, have destroyed mountains of documents, enough information remains in the ruins of the nation’s largest corporate bankruptcy to provide a clear picture of what happened to wreck what once was the seventh-largest U.S. corporation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:10
Obfuscation, secrecy, and accounting tricks appear to have catapulted the Houston-based trader of oil and gas to the top of the Fortune 100, only to be brought down by the same corporate chicanery. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts and the federal government’s top bean counters struggle to convince the nation that the Enron crash is an isolated case, not in the least reflective of how business is done in corporate America.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:11
But there are many in the world of high finance who aren’t buying the official line and warn that Enron is just the first to fall from a shaky house of cards.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:12
Many analysts believe that this problem is nowhere more evident than at the nation’s bullion banks, and particularly at the House of Morgan (J.P. Morgan Chase). One of the world’s leading banking institutions and a major international bullion bank, Morgan Chase has received heavy media attention in recent weeks both for its financial relationships with bankrupts Enron and Global Crossing Ltd. as well as the financial collapse of Argentina.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:13
It is no secret that Morgan Chase was one of Enron’s biggest lenders, reportedly losing at least $600 million and, perhaps, billions. The banking giant’s stock has gone south, and management has been called before its shareholders to explain substantial investments in highly speculative derivatives C hidden speculation of the sort that overheated and blew up on Enron.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:14
In recent years Morgan Chase has invested much of its capital in derivatives, including gold and interest-rate derivatives, about which very little information is provided to shareholders. Among the information that has been made available, however, is that as of June 2000, J.P. Morgan reported nearly $30 billion of gold derivatives and Chase Manhattan Corp., although merged with J.P. Morgan, still reported separately in 2000 that it had $35 billion in gold derivatives. Analysts agree that the derivatives have exploded at this bank and that both positions are enormous relative to the capital of the bank and the size of the gold market.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:15
It gets worse. J.P. Morgan’s total derivatives position reportedly now stands at nearly $29 trillion, or three times the U.S. annual gross domestic product. Wall Street insiders speculate that if the gold market were to rise, Morgan Chase could be in serious financial difficulty because of its “short positions” in gold. In other words, if the price of


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:16
gold were to increase substantially, Morgan Chase and other bullion banks that are highly leveraged in gold would have trouble covering their liabilities. One financial analyst, who asked not to be identified, explained the situation this way: “Gold is borrowed by Morgan Chase from the Bank of England at 1 percent interest and then Morgan Chase sells the gold on the open market, then reinvests the proceeds into interest-bearing vehicles at maybe 6 percent.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:17
At some point, though, Morgan Chase must return the borrowed gold to the Bank of England, and if the price of gold were significantly to increase during any point in this process, it would make it prohibitive and potentially ruinous to repay the gold.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:18
Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a nonprofit organization that researches and studies what he calls the “gold cartel” (J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve), and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com, tells Insight that “Morgan Chase and other bullion banks are another Enron waiting to happen.” Murphy says, “Enron occurred because the nature of their business was obscured, there was no oversight and someone was cooking the books. Enron was deceiving everyone about their business operations C and the same thing is happening with the gold and bullion banks.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:19
According to Murphy, “The price of gold always has been a barometer used by many to determine the financial health of the United States. A steady gold price usually is associated by the public and economic analysts as an indication or a reflection of the stability of the financial system. Steady gold; steady dollar. Enron structured a financial system that put the company at risk and eventually took it down. The same structure now exists at Morgan Chase with their own interest-rate/gold-derivatives position. There is very little information available about its position in the gold market and, as with the case of Enron, it could easily bring them down.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:20
In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the BIS.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:21
Howe’s claim contends that the price of gold has been manipulated since 1994 “by conspiracy of public officials and major bullion banks, with three objectives: 1) to prevent rising gold prices from sounding a warning on U.S. inflation; 2) to prevent rising gold prices from signaling weakness in the international value of the dollar; and 3) to prevent banks and others who have funded themselves through borrowing gold at low interest rates and are thus short physical gold from suffering huge losses as a consequence of rising gold prices.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:22
While all the defendants flatly deny participation in such a scheme, Howe’s case is being heard. Howe tells Insight he has provided the court with very compelling evidence to support his claim, including sworn testimony by Greenspan before the House Banking Committee in July 1998. Greenspan assured the committee, “Nor can private counterparties restrict supply of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over the counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.” Howe and other “gold bugs” cite this as a virtual public announcement “that the price of gold had been and would continue to be controlled if necessary.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:23
According to Howe, “There is a great deal of evidence, but this is a very complicated issue. The key, though, is the short position of the banks and their gold derivatives. The central banks have ‘leased’ gold for low returns to the bullion banks for the purpose of keeping the price of gold low. Greenspan’s remarks in 1998 explain how the price of gold has been suppressed at times when it looked like the price of gold was increasing.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:24
Furthermore, Howe’s complaint also cites remarks made privately by Edward George, governor of the Bank of England and a director of the BIS, to Nicholas J. Morrell, chief executive of Lonmin Plc: “We looked into the abyss if the gold price rose further. A further rise would have taken down one or several trading houses, which might have


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:25
taken down all the rest in their wake. Therefore, at any price, at any cost, the central banks had to quell the gold price, manage it. It was very difficult to get the gold price under control, but we have now succeeded. The U.S. Fed was very active in getting the gold price down. So was the U.K. [United Kingdom].”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:26
Whether the Fed and others in the alleged “gold cartel” have conspired to suppress the price of gold may, in the end, be secondary to the growing need for financial transparency. Wall Street insiders agree that as long as regulators, analysts, accountants, and politicians can be lobbied and “corrupted” to permit special privileges, there will be more Enron-size failures.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:27
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey L. Pitt, well aware of the seriousness of these problems, recently testified before the House Financial Services Committee that “it is my hope there are not other Enrons out there, but I’m not willing to rely on hope.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:28
Robert Maltbie, chief executive officer of www.stockjock.com and an independent analyst, long has followed Morgan Chase. He tells Insight that “there are a lot of things going on in these companies, but we don’t know for sure because much of what they’re doing is off the balance sheet. The market is scared and crying out to see what’s under the hood. Like Enron, much of what the banks are doing is off the balance sheet, and it’s a time bomb ticking as we speak.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 8:29
Just what would happen if a bank the size of Morgan Chase were unable to meet its financial obligations? “It’s tough to go there,” Maltbie says, “because it could shake the financial markets to the core.”  

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 26, 2002

!TITLE:
Before We Bomb Iraq...



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:1
The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:2
There’s been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq “problem” much worse.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:3
The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:4
Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayer dollars upon them.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:5
European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:6
The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:7
Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:8
Iraq’s defense of her homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little ability to defend itself.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:9
Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:10
Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:11
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:12
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:13
Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another- as we just did in Afghanistan- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:14
Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair’s approval is more important than the approval of the American people!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:15
Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not “supporting the troops.” But putting soldiers in harm’s way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to “support the troops.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:16
Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:17
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 9:18
We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 27, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $37 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:2
For example, Mr. Speaker, the IMF played a major role in creating the Argentine economic crisis. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:3
According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:4
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Only four years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds- taxpayer funds- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 10:9
The Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
February 27, 2002

!TITLE:
Health Information Independence Act of 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act of 2002. This act takes a major step toward restoring the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act
repeals the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to approve health claims of foods and dietary supplements.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:2
Instead, that authority is vested in an independent review board. The board is comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the commission. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim then the FDA must approve the claim. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by
the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:5
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which
liberalized rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999),
reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from
the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 11:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services committee

!DATE:
February 28, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:3
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large, multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:4
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:5
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdrawal the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by acting on my Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act (HR 3732), which requires Congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:6
This committee should also examine seriously the need for reform of the system of fiat currency which is responsible for the cycle of booms and busts which have plagued the American economy. Many members of the committee have expressed outrage over the behavior of the corporate executives of Enron. However, Enron was created by federal policies of easy credit and corporate welfare. Until this committee addresses those issues, I am afraid the American economy may suffer many more Enron-like disasters in the future.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 12:7
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services committee endorses increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system which is the root cause of America’s economic instability.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
House International Relations committee

!DATE:
February 28, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on the International Criminal Court



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the important topic of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. For Americans, the most important aspect of these international criminal tribunals is that they are the model for the UN’s International Criminal Court. Indeed, it is the perceived need to make these ad hoc tribunals permanent that really led to the creation of the ICC in the first place. This permanent UN court will attempt to claim jurisdiction over the rest of the world within the next few weeks, as it has claimed that ratification by 60 countries confers world jurisdiction upon it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:2
This means that even though the United States has not ratified the treaty- though it was signed by President Clinton’s representative at midnight on the last day- the Court will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen, from President Bush on down. The Bush Administration has admirably stated its opposition to the International Criminal Court, but it unfortunately has taken no proactive measures to “unsign” Clinton’s initial signature or to make it known that the United States has no intention of cooperating with, providing funding to, or recognizing any authority of this international court. The clock is ticking, however, and the day of reckoning is close at hand.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:3
This court is every American’s worst nightmare. Currently, there are no protections for either US military personnel or civilians from the tentacles of this International Court. This means when it claims jurisdiction, you, I, or any of our 240,000 military personnel stationed across the globe can be kidnapped, dragged off a foreign land and be put on trial by foreign judges, without benefit of the basic protections of the American legal system, for crimes that may not even be considered crimes in the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:4
Pro-life groups in America have already expressed concern that the Court’s claimed jurisdiction over “enforced pregnancy” could make it criminal for groups to work to restrict access to abortions- or even reduce government funding of abortions. The pro-ICC Woman’s Caucus for Gender Justice has already stated that countries’ domestic laws may need to be changed to conform to ICC Statutes. Former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, Dr. Richard Wilkins, said recently that the ICC could eventually be used to try “the Pope and other religious leaders,” because issues such as abortion and homosexuality would ultimately fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:5
Supporters of the International Criminal Court are quick to say that the Court is modeled on the Nuremberg tribunal set up after World War II, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nuremberg was a trial initiated and prosecuted by sovereign nations. It was a reassertion of national sovereignty over the crimes of a regime that disregarded the concept, that saw other sovereign countries as merely “living space” for their own people. As one analyst recently wrote, “the Nuremberg tribunal, unlike the Hague tribunal, was not really an international tribunal at all. The judges quite specifically stated that the act of promulgating the Nuremberg charter was ‘the exercise of sovereign legislative power of the countries to which the German Reich unconditionally surrendered.’  There was no pretense that the ‘international community’ was prosecuting the Germans.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:6
The International Criminal Court is to be modeled after the tribunals dealing with Rwanda and Yugoslavia, that is a fact. Knowing how these tribunals operate should therefore terrify any American who loves our Constitution and our system of justice. In the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, anonymous witnesses and secret testimony are permitted; the defendant cannot identify his accusers. There is no independent appeals procedure. As one observer of the Hague in action noted, “the prosecutor’s use of conspiracy as a charge recalls the great Soviet show trials of 1936-1938. In one case, the Orwellian proportions of the Prosecution mindset was revealed as the accused was charged with conspiring, despite the admitted lack of evidence.  It is not the destruction of evidence but its very absence which can be used to convict!”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:7
Indeed in the showcase trial of the ICTY, that of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte told the French paper Le Monde last year that no genocide charge had been brought against Milosevic for Kosovo “because there is no evidence for it.” What did the Court do in the face of this lack of evidence? They simply disregarded a basic principle of extradition law and announced that they would try Milosevic for crimes other than those for which he had been extradited. Thus they added two additional sets of charges- for Bosnia and Croatia- to the indictment for Kosovo. The Kosovo extradition itself was nothing more than bribery and kidnapping. Milosevic was snatched up off the streets of Serbia after the United States promised the government it had helped install millions of dollars in aid. That national sovereignty was to be completely disregarded by this international tribunal was evident in its ignoring a ruling by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court that extradition was illegal and unconstitutional. Yugoslav officials preferred to put Milosevic on trial in Yugoslavia, under the Yugoslav system of jurisprudence, for whatever crimes he may have committed in Yugoslavia. The internationalists completely ignored this legitimate right of a sovereign state.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:9
It is very convenient for supporters of this International Criminal Court that the high profile test case in the Yugoslav tribunal is the widely reviled Slobodan Milosevic. They couldn’t have hoped for a better case. Any attack on the tribunal is immediately brushed off as a defense of Milosevic. It is illustrative for us to take a look at how the Milosevic trial is being prosecuted thus far. After all, today it is Milosevic but tomorrow it could be any of us. And with the Milosevic trial, the signs are very troubling. We have all seen the arrogance of the judge in the case, who several times has turned off Milosevic’s microphone in mid-sentence. Thus far, the prosecution has attempted to bring as witnesses people who are on the payroll of the tribunal itself, as in the case of Besnik Sokoli. Other witnesses have turned out to have been members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which is the armed force that initiated the insurgent movement within Yugoslavia. Remember, Milosevic was extradited for Kosovo and for Kosovo only, but the weakness of the case forced the Court to add other charges in other countries. Now, after Milosevic has shown himself adept at cross-examination, the prosecution is seeking to have the judge limit Milosevic’s ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. This in itself flies in the face of our system of evidence law, which allows the defendant nearly unlimited ability to cross-examine a witness as long as it is relevant to testimony.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 13:10
Mr. Chairman, these international tribunals and the International Criminal Court that they spawned are bad for America and bad for the rest of the world. The concept of a permanent criminal court, run by unelected bureaucrats, third rate judges, and political hacks, and answerable to no one, undermines everything that free peoples should hold dear. It is about American sovereignty, the sovereignty of our American legal system, but that is not all. It should also be important for Americans that the sovereignty of the rest of the world be maintained as well, as when sovereignty is undermined anywhere by an un-elected international body, it is under threat everywhere.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
House International Relations committee

!DATE:
March 6, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House International Relations committee and the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I would like to state my strong objections to the manner in which this piece of legislation was raised. I was only made aware of the existence of this legislation this morning, just a couple of hours before I was expected to vote on it. There was no committee markup of the legislation, nor was there any notice that this legislation would appear on today’s suspension calendar.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:2
This legislation represents a very serious and significant shift in United States policy toward Colombia. It sets us on a slippery slope toward unwise military intervention in a foreign civil war that has nothing to do with the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:3
Our policy toward Colombia was already ill-advised when it consisted of an expensive front in our failed “war on drugs.”  Plan Colombia, launched nearly two years ago, sent $1.3 billion to Colombia under the guise of this war on drugs. A majority of that went to the Colombian military; much was no doubt lost through corruption. Though this massive assistance program was supposed to put an end to the FARC and other rebel groups involved in drug trafficking, two years later we are now being told- in this legislation and elsewhere- that the FARC and rebel groups are stronger than ever. So now we are being asked to provide even more assistance in an effort that seems to have had a result the opposite of what was intended. In effect, we are being asked to redouble failed efforts. That doesn’t make sense.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:4
At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States “to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . .” In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:5
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between a rebel group fighting a civil war in a foreign country and the kind of international terrorist organization that targeted the United States last September. As ruthless and violent as the three rebel groups in Colombia no doubt are, their struggle for power in that country is an internal one. None of the three appears to have any intention of carrying out terrorist activities in the United States. Should we become involved in a civil war against them, however, these organizations may well begin to view the United States as a legitimate target. What possible reason could there be for us to take on such a deadly risk? What possible rewards could there be for the United States support for one faction or the other in this civil war?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:6
As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to “protect democracy” and “stop drug trafficking” you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil. The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline- jointly owned by the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants American taxpayers to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of American citizens to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:7
Further intervention in the internal political and military affairs of Colombia will only increase the mistrust and anger of the average Colombian citizen toward the United States, as these citizens will face the prospect of an ongoing, United States-supported war in their country. Already Plan Colombia has fueled the deep resentment of Colombian farmers toward the United States. These farmers have seen their legitimate crops destroyed, water supply polluted, and families sprayed as powerful herbicides miss their intended marks. An escalation of American involvement will only make matters worse.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 14:8
Mr. Speaker, at this critical time, our precious military and financial resources must not be diverted to a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Trying to designate increased military involvement in Colombia as a new front on the “war on terror” makes no sense at all. It will only draw the United States into a quagmire much like Vietnam. The Colombian civil war is now in its fourth decade; pretending that the fighting there is somehow related to our international war on terrorism is to stretch the imagination to the breaking point. It is unwise and dangerous.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul

!DATE:
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

!TITLE:
Steel Protectionism



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened by the administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs represent naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining free-market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. True free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of government interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:2
We’ve all heard about how these tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, Economics in one Lesson . Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic economics for the sake of political expediency. Now I grant you that this is hardly anything new in this town, but it’s important that we see these tariffs as the political favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:3
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat. Sure, some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:4
If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:5
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 15:6
Mr. Speaker, it’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Federal Penalties For Child Sexual Abuse

!DATE:
14 March 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those guilty of sexual abuse of children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. However, I must offer a cautionary note to the legislation before us, which would establish a mandatory lifetime sentence for anyone convicted of two child sexual abuse crimes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 16:2
The bill before us today simply expands Federal penalties for already existing Federal crimes, and does not in any way infringe on the jurisdiction of the States. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider whether child sexual abuse should be a Federal crime at all. The Constitution specifies three Federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. It is a stretch, to say the least, to define child abuse as a form of treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. Therefore, perhaps the best means of dealing with child sexual abuse occurring on Federal lands across State lines is to turn the suspected perpetrator over to the relevant local jurisdiction and allow the local authorities to prosecute the crime.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 16:3
As I stated before, it certainly is a legitimate exercise of government power to impose a lifetime sentence on those guilty of multiple sex crimes against children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider the wisdom of Congress’ increased reliance on mandatory minimums. Over the past several years we have seen a number of cases with people sentenced to life, or other harsh sentences, that appear to offend basic principles of justice. Even judges in many of these cases admit that the sentences imposed are in no way just, but the judiciary’s hands are tied by the statutorily imposed mandatory minimums.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 16:4
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I believe this is a worthy piece of legislation, I hope someday we will debate whether expanding Federal crimes (along with the use of congressionally mandated mandatory minimum sentences) is consistent with constitutional government and fundamental principles of justice.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Export-Import Reauthorization Act

!DATE:
19 March 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing taxpayer support for the Export-Import Reauthorization Act for every 1 day, much less for a month violates basic economic, constitutional, and moral principles. Therefore, Congress should reject S. 2019.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:2
The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support — rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:3
Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank “creates jobs” and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called “the broken window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the “benefits” of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen; the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:4
Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all; what is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:5
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “projectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and lowers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:6
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use. Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:7
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12–15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations; it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:8
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:9
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 17:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject S. 2019.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul

!DATE:
Wednesday, March 20, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 339, a bill by the United States Congress which seeks to tell a sovereign nation how to hold its own elections. It seems the height of arrogance for us to sit here and lecture the people and government of Ukraine on what they should do and should not do in their own election process. One would have thought after our own election debacle in November 2000, that we would have learned how counterproductive and hypocritical it is to lecture other democratic countries on their electoral processes. How would members of this body- or any American- react if countries like Ukraine demanded that our elections here in the United States conform to their criteria? So I think we can guess how Ukrainians feel about this piece of legislation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:2
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States. In fiscal year 2002 alone, Ukraine was provided $154 million. Yet after all this money- which we were told was to promote democracy- and more than ten years after the end of the Soviet Union, we are told in this legislation that Ukraine has made little if any progress in establishing a democratic political system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:3
Far from getting more involved in Ukraine’s electoral process, which is where this legislation leads us, the United States is already much too involved in the Ukrainian elections. The U.S. government has sent some $4.7 million dollars to Ukraine for monitoring and assistance programs, including to train their electoral commission members and domestic monitoring organizations. There have been numerous reports of U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations in Ukraine being involved in pushing one or another political party. This makes it look like the United States is taking sides in the Ukrainian elections.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:4
The legislation calls for the full access of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors to all aspects of the parliamentary elections, but that organization has time and time again, from Slovakia to Russia and elsewhere, shown itself to be unreliable and politically biased. Yet the United States continues to fund and participate in OSCE activities. As British writer John Laughland observed this week in the Guardian newspaper, “Western election monitoring has become the political equivalent of an Arthur Andersen audit. This supposedly technical process is now so corrupted by political bias that it would be better to abandon it. Only then will countries be able to elect their leaders freely.” Mr. Speaker, I think this is advice we would be wise to heed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:5
Other aspects of this bill are likewise troubling. This bill seeks, from thousands of miles away and without any of the facts, to demand that the Ukrainian government solve crimes within Ukraine that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. No one knows what happened to journalist Heorhiy Gongadze or any of the alleged murdered Ukrainian journalists, yet by adding it into this ill-advised piece of legislation we are sitting here suggesting that the government has something to do with the alleged murders. This meddling into the Ukrainian judicial system is inappropriate and counter-productive.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 18:6
Mr. Speaker, we are legislators in the United States Congress. We are not in Ukraine. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and no business telling them how to conduct their elections. A far better policy toward Ukraine would be to eliminate any U.S.-government imposed barrier to free trade between Americans and Ukrainians.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul

!DATE:
March 20, 2002

!TITLE:
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:1
I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:2
Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:3
Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:4
Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:5
Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair’s prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:6
Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:7
Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:8
Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:9
The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:10
The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:11
What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 19:12
Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul

!DATE:
March 20, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Military Conscription



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America’s military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:2
Since military conscription ended over 30 years ago, voluntary armed services have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States. The recent success of the military campaign in Afghanistan once again demonstrates the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:3
A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts also are unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today’s high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:4
If conscription helps promote an effective military, then why did General Vladisova Putilin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, react to plans to end the military draft in Russia, by saying “This is the great dream of all servicemen, when our army will become completely professional...?”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:5
Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation’s veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation’s highest ideals.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America’s founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:7
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: “ Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:8
Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: “...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:9
President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!DATE:
April 10, 2002

!TITLE:
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:1
We were warned, and in the early years of our Republic, we heeded that warning. Today, though, we are entangled in everyone’s affairs throughout the world, and we are less safe as a result. The current Middle-East crisis is one that we helped create, and it is typical of how foreign intervention fails to serve our interests. Now we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a fight that will not soon end. No matter what the outcome, we lose.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:2
By trying to support both sides we, in the end, will alienate both sides. We are forced, by domestic politics here at home, to support Israel at all costs, with billions of dollars of aid, sophisticated weapons, and a guarantee that America will do whatever is necessary for Israel’s security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:3
Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:4
Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:5
What a choice! We must choose between the character of Arafat versus that of Sharon.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:6
The information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists? We should remember that Palestinian deaths are seen by most Arabs as being American-inspired, since our weapons are being used against them, and they’re the ones whose land has been continuously taken from them.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:7
Yet there are still some in this country who can’t understand why many in the Arab/Muslim world hate America.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:8
Is it any wonder that the grassroots people in Arab nations, even in Kuwait, threaten their own governments that are totally dominated by American power and money?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:9
The arguments against foreign intervention are many. The chaos in the current Middle-East crisis should be evidence enough for all Americans to reconsider our extensive role overseas and reaffirm the foreign policy of our early leaders- a policy that kept us out of the affairs of others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:10
But here we are in the middle of a war that has no end and serves only to divide us here at home, while the unbalanced slaughter continues with tanks and aircraft tearing up a country that does not even have an army.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:11
It is amazing that the clamor of support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord’s work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. We need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts- which is something so many in this body seem intent on provoking.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:12
Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:13
Current policy prompts our government on one day to give the go-ahead to Sharon to do what he needs to do to combat terrorism (a term that now has little or no meaning); on the next day, however, our government tells him to quit, for fear that we may overly aggravate our oil pals in the Arab nations and jeopardize our oil supplies. This is an impossible policy that will inevitably lead to chaos.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:14
Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored, and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control- and the American people lose.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:15
It’s costly, to say the least. Already our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one day these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 21:16
A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!TITLE:
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002

!DATE:
April 11, 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. Paul. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the "American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:2
This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that President Bush should formally rescind the signature approving the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States, and should take necessary steps to prevent the establishment of that Court. It also prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:4
Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen -- military personnel and civilian alike.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:5
The Court itself, however, is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 22:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by co-sponsoring the "American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002."

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 476

!DATE:
17 April 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to state autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 23:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 476.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)

!DATE:
24 April 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, seldom in history have supporters of increased state power failed to take advantage of a real or perceived crisis to increase government interference in our economic and/or personal lives. Therefore we should not be surprised that the events surrounding the Enron bankruptcy are being used to justify the expansion of Federal regulatory power contained in H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:2
So ingrained is the idea that new Federal regulations will prevent future Enrons, that today’s debate will largely be between CARTA’s supporters and those who believe this bill does not provide enough Federal regulation and control. I would like to suggest that before Congress imposes new regulations on the accounting profession, perhaps we should consider whether the problems the regulations are designed to address were at least in part caused by prior government interventions into the market. Perhaps Congress could even consider the almost heretical idea that reducing Federal control of the markets is in the public’s best interest. Congress should also consider whether the new regulations will have costs which might outweigh any (marginal) gains. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Congress should contemplate whether we actually have any constitutional authorization to impose these new regulations, instead of simply stretching the Commerce Clause to justify the program de jour.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:3
CARTA establishes a new bureaucracy with enhanced oversight authority of accounting firms, as well as the authority to impose new mandates on these firms. CARTA also imposes new regulations regarding investing in stocks and enhances the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, Mr. Speaker, companies are already required by Federal law to comply with numerous mandates, including obtaining audited financial statements from certified accountants. These mandates have enriched accounting firms and may have given them market power beyond what they could obtain in a free market. These laws also give corrupt firms an opportunity to attempt to use political power to gain special treatment for Federal lawmakers and regulators at the expense of their competitors and even, as alleged in the Enron case, their employees and investors.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:4
When Congress establishes a regulatory state it creates an opportunity for corruption. Unless CARTA eliminates original sin, it will not eliminate fraud. In fact, by creating a new bureaucracy and further politicizing the accounting profession, CARTA may create new opportunities for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to their advantage.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:5
Even if CARTA transformed all (or at least all accountants) into angels, it could still harm individual investors. First, new regulations inevitably raise the overhead costs of investing. This will affect the entire economy as it lessens the capital available to businesses, thus leading to lower rates of economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, individual investors will have less money for their retirement, their children’s education, or to make a down payment on a new home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:6
Government regulations also harm investors by inducing a sense of complacency. Investors are much less likely to invest prudently and ask tough questions of the companies they are investing in when they believe government regulations are protecting their investments. However, as mentioned above, government regulations are unable to prevent all fraudulent activity, much less prevent all instances of imprudent actions. In fact, as also pointed out above, complex regulations create opportunities for illicit actions by both the regulator and the regulated, Mr. Chairman, publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosures rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:7
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the Federal Government to bail our every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there if for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:8
Increased Federal interference in the market could also harm consumers by crippling innovative market mechanisms to hold corporate managers accountable to their shareholders. Ironically, Mr. Chairman, current SEC regulations make it difficult for shareholders to challenge management decisions. Thus government regulations encourage managers to disregard shareholder interests!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:9
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a history of crippling market mechanisms to protect shareholders. As former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett pointed out in a recent Washington Times column, during the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as the “junk” bond, which made corporate takeovers easier. Thanks to the corporate raiders, managers knew they had to be responsive to shareholders needs or they would become a potential target for a takeover.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:10
Unfortunately, the backlash against corporate raiders, led by demographic politicians and power-hungry bureaucrats eager to expand the financial police state, put an end to hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, in the Washington Times column sited above, described the effects of this action on shareholders, “Without the threat of a takeover, manaagers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.” Ironically, the Federal power grab which killed the corporate raider may have set the stage for the Enron debacle, which is now being used as an excuse for yet another Federal power grab!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:11
If left alone by Congress, the market is perfectly capable of disciplining businesses who engage in unsound practices. After all, before the government intervened, Arthur Andersen and Enron had already begun to pay a stiff penalty, a penalty delivered by individual investors acting through the market. This shows that not only can the market deliver punishment, but it can also deliver this punishment swifter and more efficiently than the government. We cannot know what efficient means of disciplining companies would emerge from a market process but we can know they would be better at meeting the needs of investors than a top-down regulatory approach.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:12
Of course, while the supporters of increased regulation claim Enron as a failure of “ravenous capitalism,” the truth is Enron was a phenomenon of the mixed economy, rather than the operations of the free market. Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export- Import (Ex-Im) Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) subsidies. These programs make risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. While they purport to help developing nations, Ex-Im and OPIC are in truth nothing more than naked subsidies for certain politically-favored American corporations, particularly corporations like Enron that lobby hard and give huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Rather than finding ways to exploit the Enron mess to expand Federal power, perhaps Congress should stop aiding corporations like Enron that pick the taxpayer’s pockets through Ex-Im and OPIC.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:13
If nothing else, Mr. Chairman, Enron’s success at obtaining State favors is another reason to think twice about expanding political control over the economy. After all, allegations have been raised that Enron used the same clout by which it received corporate welfare to obtain other “favors” from regulators and politicians, such as exemptions from regulations that applied to their competitors. This is not an uncommon phenomenon when one has a regulatory state, the result of which is that winners and losers are picked according to who has the most political clout.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:14
Congress should also examine the role the Federal Reserve played in the Enron situation. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet, what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:15
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market — not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:16
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate the financial markets or the accounting profession. Instead, responsibility for enforcing laws against fraud are under the jurisdiction of the state and local governments. This decentralized approach actually reduces the opportunity for the type of corruption referred to above — after all, it is easier to corrupt one Federal official than 50 State Officials.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 24:17
In conclusion, the legislation before us today expands Federal power over the accounting profession and the financial markets. By creating new opportunities for unscrupulous actors to maneuver through the regulatory labyrinth, increasing the costs of investing, and preempting the market’s ability to come up with creative ways to hold corporate officials accountable, this legislation harms the interests of individual workers and investors. Furthermore, this legislation exceeds the constitutional limits on Federal power, interfering in matters the 10th amendment reserves to state and local law enforcement. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, Congress should focus on ending corporate welfare programs which provide taxpayer dollars to large politically-connected companies, and ending the misguided regulatory and monetary policies that helped create the Enron debacle.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Predictions

!DATE:
24 April 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens and the internal affairs of foreign countries leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:2
I predict U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine, both the West Bank and the Gaza, as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:3
Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short-lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons flowing to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:4
U.S. troops and others will be used to monitor the “peace.” In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, with oil prices soaring to historic highs.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:5
Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations in their efforts to avenge the humiliation of the Palestinians. That will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:6
Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:7
The U.N. will continue to condemn, through resolutions, Israeli-U.S. policies in the Middle East, and they will be ignored.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:8
Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:9
China, ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly will sell to militant Muslims the weapons they want, and will align herself with the Arab nations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:10
The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:11
Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:12
The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:13
An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:14
Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:15
Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:16
Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:17
The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:18
Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:19
The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:20
The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:21
Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:22
This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:23
During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:24
The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:25
Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 25:26
I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Honoring Calhoun High School

!DATE:
29 April 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 29, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the Calhoun High School “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team from Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Gennie Burleson Westbrook, the 2001–2002 Calhoun High School team placed third in the statewide competition held on Janaury 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following students: Karin Chen, Candice Cook, Chelsea Ghiselin, Tiffany Harvey, Kimberlee Hobizal, Major Hoffman, Stephen Jedlicka, Scott Kelly, Josh McClellan, Thomas Nguyen, Matt Thomas, Vanessa Thorne, and Andrew Wu.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill if Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepares for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:3
Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:4
Preparation for the state contest also required assistance from members of the community who came forward to volunteer to work with the team members. I salute the following volunteers: Connie Hunt, Mark Daigle, Shannon Salyer, Britney Salyer, Edris Montalvo, Darren Hartl, Joane McDonough, Phillip Swope, and Larry Nichols.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:5
I am proud to have these students in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perseverance shown by each student. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and volunteers which helped them reach for their goal.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 26:6
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001–2002 “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team on their third place win in state competition.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Honoring San Marcos High School

!DATE:
29 April 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 29, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the San Marcos High School “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team from San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Paula Wolking and Lezlie Wiederhold, the 2001– 2002 Calhoun High School team placed second in the statewide competition held on January 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following 29 seniors: Kelli Avila, Jason Baen, Marisa Bell-Metereau, Erin Blum, Paul Buntyn, Mariah Campbell, Amy Carlson, John David Carson, Samantha Charleston, Justyn Contreras, Heather Davis, Jacob Delgado, Veronica De La Garza, Matt Diaz, Shelby Eastland, Jessica Gifford, Megan Hansen, Kari Howe, J R Manrique, Rachel Martin, Genesis McCoo, Jenny Morrison, Lani Ogle, Valerie Perez, Amara Richardson, Orlando Sanchez, Francesca Scanio, Kim Spire, and Joshua Yanity.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 27:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepared for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 27:3
Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 27:4
I am proud to have these students in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perseverance shown by each student. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and volunteers which helped them reach their goal.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 27:5
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001–2002 “We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution” team on their second place win in state competition.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 1, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Taxpayer Funding of Multinational Development Banks



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, Congress can perform a great service to the American taxpayer, as well as citizens in developing countries, by rejecting HR 2604, which reauthorizes two multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Asian Development Fund (AsDF).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 28:2
Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason . Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries’ long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 28:3
If Congress lacks authority to fund an international food aid program, then Congress certainly lacks authority to use taxpayer funds to promote economic development in foreign lands. Programs such as the AsDF are not only unconstitutional, but, by removing resources from the control of consumers and placing them under the control of bureaucrats and politically-powerful special interests, these programs actually retard economic development in the countries receiving this "aid!" This is because funds received from programs like the AsDF are all-too-often wasted on political boondoggles which benefit the political elites in the recipient countries, but are of little benefit to the individual citizens of those countries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 28:4
In conclusion, HR 2604 authorizes the continued taking of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional and economically destructive programs. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill, return the money to the American taxpayers, and show the world that the United States Congress is embracing the greatest means of generating prosperity: the free market.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
International Fund For Agricultural Development

!DATE:
1 May 2002

SPEECH OF HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 1, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress can perform a great service to the American taxpayer, as well as citizens in developing countries, by rejecting HR 2604, which reauthorizes two multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Asian Development Fund (AsDF).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 29:2
Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason. Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries’ long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 29:3
If Congress lacks authority to fund an international food aid program, then Congress certainly lacks authority to use taxpayer funds to promote economic development in foreign lands. Programs such as the AsDF are not only unconstitutional, but, by removing resources from the control of consumers and placing them under the control of bureaucrats and politically-powerful special interests, these programs actually retard economic development in the countries receiving this “aid!” This is because funds received from programs like the AsDF are all-too-often wasted on political boondoggles which benefit the political elites in the recipient countries, but are of little benefit to the individual citizens of those countries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 29:4
In conclusion, HR 2604 authorizes the continued taking of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional and economically destructive programs. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill, return the money to the American taxpayers, and show the world that the United States Congress is embracing the greatest means of generating prosperity: the free market.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 1, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, being a cosponsor of this amendment. I am opposed to the Export-Import Bank because I see there is no benefit to it, it has nothing to do with capitalism and freedom. It has a lot to do with special interests, and I am opposed to that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 30:2
One thing I am convinced of over the years from looking at bad agencies of government, tinkering on the edges does not do a lot of good. Members might ask why am I tinkering here? Why do I want to tell corporations what to do? I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises, but this is different because they are getting taxpayer money. That is different than if they were just a corporation making it on their own.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 30:3
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 30:4
What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys. What happens so often when government gets involved is there are unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade; but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big difference.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 1, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:2
But I do not want to talk about the immorality of this so-called bank or the unconstitutionality of it. I want to talk just a second or two about the economics of it. It is really bad economics. It is pointed out that it helps a company here or there, but what is never talked about what you do not see. This is credit allocation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:3
In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:4
Now, it seems strange that we here in the Congress are willing to give the beneficiary China the most number of dollars. They qualify for nearly $6 billion worth of credits. And that just does not seem like the reasonable thing for us to do. So I strongly urge a no vote on this bill.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:6
Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded “assistance” from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron’s inevitable day of reckoning.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:7
Eximbank’s use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:8
It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:9
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:10
At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:11
Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank creates jobs and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called, the “broken window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the “benefits” of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:12
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:13
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:14
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 31:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 2, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:1
MR. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration’s more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:2
There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that "the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001." This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:4
Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as "not a very helpful approach" to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side - the Palestinians - is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as "honest broker" make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:5
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:6
Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm’s way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the "peace process" and some 300 billion of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 32:7
Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism

!DATE:
2 May 2002

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 2, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration’s more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:2
There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that “the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.” This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the onesidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:4
Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as “not a very helpful approach” to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side — the Palestinians — is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as “honest broker” make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:5
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:6
Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm’s way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the “peace process” and some 300 million of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 33:7
Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Seeks More Balance Of Interests

!DATE:
2 May 2002

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to express some concerns about the process that we are going through today.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:2
I am on the Committee on International Relations, and we have not yet had a chance to really debate this. This was brought up rather rapidly last night. We had to not break the rules but bend the rules a little bit to get this resolution to the floor. It seems like it would have been reasonable to bring this up next week, but there may have been some other reasons why this is being pushed through today.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:3
Certainly this would not have been the State Department’s first choice. In talking with the State Department, matter of fact, they expressed some real reservations about this. They said it is not a very helpful approach, and they said we need to work with the situation as it is to be an honest broker.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:4
This legislation is one-sided and, therefore, not very helpful. So here we are, as a Congress, in a desire to please certain people, moving quickly, even though it may affect what is going on in the State Department. And the State Department goes on to say that this one-sided legislation just comes when in the past 48 hours or so we have been making some progress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:5
Even our chairman of the committee was quoted in the paper this morning of saying, well, if he had his way, he would prefer a more balanced resolution. And he is a very, very strong supporter of Israel. Of course, I would like to see a more balanced resolution, too. I would like to see one where we balance America’s interests as well as others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 34:6
There is a lot of talk about democracy and peace. I take a position of nonintervention in the affairs of other people. I believe very sincerely that it is consistent with the Constitution and very sincerely that it works to our best interest for national security and for defense; and that even though this is intended very sincerely to help Israel, motions like this, resolutions like this, can very well backfire and actually hurt Israel more so than they will help.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 9, 2002

!TITLE:
Say No to Conscription



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster’s speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:2
Despite the threat posed to the very existence of the young republic by the invading British Empire, Congress ultimately rejected the proposal to institute a draft. If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:3
Webster was among the first of a long line of prominent Americans, including former President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to recognize that a draft violates the fundamental principles of liberty this country was founded upon. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:4
 In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster’s explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:5
ON CONSCRIPTION (By Daniel Webster) During America’s first great war, waged against Great Britain, the Madison Administration tried to introduce a conscription bill into Congress. This bill called forth one of Daniel Webster’s most eloquent efforts, in a powerful opposition to conscription. The speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814; the following is a condensation:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:6
This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:7
But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution--“to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:8
The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:9
Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?  Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:11
The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction, out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regular chain of premises and conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort and degree of misery, than has been exercised by any civilized Government in modern times.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:12
But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result.  For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:13
The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:14
Into the paradise of domestic life you enter, not indeed by temptations and sorceries, but by open force and violence.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:15
Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall — if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, ’tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:16
A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If administration has found that it can not form an army without conscription, it will find, if it venture on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, and in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; and having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 35:17
I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Offers Amendment No. 9

!DATE:
9 May 2002

PART A AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Amendment 9

!DATE:
9 May 2002

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. CANNON), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODE), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. WELDON).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:2
This amendment is not complex at all. It is a sense of Congress resolution as put in the bill. It says, “It is the sense of Congress that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in this Act should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for the International Criminal Court.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:3
This amendment is to urge the President not to use any funds for the International Criminal Court. I would like it to be a mandate. It is not, but it is still very, very important. I think this sends a message to our servicemen that they will never have to be taken into court against their will in the International Criminal Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:4
On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection of the servicemen.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:5
But the interesting thing is that under this Rome Convention, the agreement is once 60 nations sign the treaty, it goes into effect. Even with what the President did by rescinding the signature and saying we do not want any part of it, we are still under international law under the understanding that our servicemen could be called into International Criminal Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:6
We have to make this message very loud and clear. This is not overly strong, but I think we should make this message and say that none of these funds should be spent, but we still have to offer protection to our personnel that they never be called into this International Criminal Court. To me, it is an issue of national sovereignty, and it is an issue that is important to a lot of Americans. It is what our job should be, to protect our country. For this reason, I think this is very important. I hope I can get Members to agree with the amendment and pass it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:7
Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically- motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” — which undermines American sovereignty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:8
President Bush, in renouncing the U.S. signature and declaring that the United States would have nothing to do with the International Criminal Court, has put the Court on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The president is to be most highly commended for standing strong for American sovereignty in the face of worldwide attempts to undermine that sovereignty with this deeply flawed global court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:9
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:10
Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president’s decision to neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the Treaty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:11
I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, therefore, to support the president’s decision and to indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court. it is imperative that we not award the International Criminal Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:12
I am also introducing today a Sense of the Congress bill to commend President Bush for his bold and brave decision to renounce the United States’ signature on the Statute of the International Court. We must support the president as he seeks to protect American servicemen and citizens from this court. I hope all of my colleagues here will co-sponsor and support this legislation, and please call my office for more details.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:13
In the meantime, I urge enthusiastic support of this amendment before us. We must speak with one voice in denying the International Criminal Court a single American tax dollar!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 37:14
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yields To Rep. Barr

!DATE:
9 May 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR).

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 9, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:1
We Want No Part of the ICC: Commending President Bush Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:2
On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)]." President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:3
By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is "open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;" and that "the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty" – which seriously threatens American sovereignty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:4
I applaud President Bush in making it perfectly clear that the United States wants no part of the ICC. He faced enormous pressure from the international community to do otherwise, yet he did the right thing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: "Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty." Secretary Rumsfeld added, "When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:6
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, explaining the president’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, made the following critical point: "Notwithstanding our disagreements with the Rome Treaty, the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC; but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court." There is no indication that Undersecretary Grossman’s message has been received.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:7
Therefore, this legislation makes it clear that Congress should take all steps necessary to grant appropriate authority to the president to defend the American people – servicemember and citizen alike -- from the threat of arrest, prosecution and conviction by the International Criminal Court.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:8
I am introducing this legislation to also to commend President Bush for his courageous move, to assure the president that this body supports his action to protect the Constitution and American sovereignty. We have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and we should stand with the president.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 39:9
I rise, finally, to encourage the president to remain steadfast in his intention of protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the unchecked power of the International Criminal Court. This is only the beginning, however, there is much more to be done.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Repudiating A Treaty Signature

!DATE:
9 May 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented to repudiate a signature on a treaty, but it is very important. They must have felt it was extremely important for the protection of our soldiers. So it is this discomfort we might feel about the repudiation of a signature versus doing what we think is best to protect our troops. I honestly believe that this is very necessary.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:3
Now, the argument that all of a sudden we are going to capture Saddam Hussein and we are not going to have the international criminal court to deal with him, that is really not a good argument because the special tribunals for Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda can and still be set up. It has nothing to do with that, so that would still be available.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:4
And it is the jurisdiction, it is the sovereignty, it is the civil liberties of the American soldier that we are dealing with. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) brought this up, and this is very true. These trials, they do not have juries. The judges are appointed in secret. They cannot face their accusers. And we are going to join an organization like that, endorse it, send money and say that our troops may become subject to this? To me, it is an extremely dangerous situation that we have here now, because we did not even ratify the treaty. We have repudiated the signature and they are still saying this is going to apply to our soldiers. We have a serious problem on our hands and we should at least do this very little thing here, because this is a sense of Congress resolution that we would not like to have the President spend any money on this, and this would support his position.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:5
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 40:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 14, 2002

!TITLE:
No Forced Dress Code for U.S. Soldiers Abroad



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, I would like to make a few observations. It is unfortunate that we are in a position where we must act on such legislation.  Because of our unwise policy of foreign interventionism, which has placed thousands of American service members in the Middle East including in Saudi Arabia, we are placed in a no-win situation. Either we disregard and mock the customs and culture of Saudi Arabia by refusing to adhere to dress codes that they have adopted, or we subject American women to a dress code that is offensive to our own culture and customs and is disrespectful to the sacrifices they are making for this country. What a choice, Mr. Speaker!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 41:2
I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose homeland is being defended by American troops.  Young Americans join the all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for the “privilege” of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to force his female colleagues to wear an abaya.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 41:3
The fact remains that we continue to maintain troops in a place where they are not needed. It is the consequences of this dangerous policy that concern me most. Isn’t it time to return to a more sound foreign policy, one that respects the culture of others by not intervening in their affairs? Is it not time to bring American troops home to protect America, rather than continuing to station them in far off lands where the protection they offer is not needed?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 16, 2002

!TITLE:
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4737) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:2
H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:3
H.R. 4737 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura points out in the attached article, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:5
As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:8
H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the "New Hires Database" to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be "nasty, brutish and short." However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that "I give at the (tax) office."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:14
Welfare: Not the Fed’s Job 
(By Jesse Ventura)

In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was smart public policy and worked.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:15
Welfare reform has been a huge success. Even those who criticized the 1996 law now agree it is working. Welfare case loads are down, more families are working, family income is up, and child poverty has dropped.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:16
The reason is simple: state flexibility. In six short years the states undid a 60-year-old federally prescribed welfare system and created their own programs which are far better for poor families and for taxpayers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:17
But now it appears the Bush administration is having second thoughts about empowering the states. The administration’s proposal would return us to a federally prescribed system. It would impose rules on how states work with each family, forcing a "one size fits all" model for a system that for the past six years has produced individualized systems that have been successful in states across the country.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:18
I would hope that as a former governor, President Bush would understand that these problems are better handled by the individual states. The administration’s proposal would cripple welfare reform in my state and many others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:19
I know that my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson did a wonderful job of reforming Wisconsin’s welfare system. But that doesn’t mean the Wisconsin system would be as effective in Vermont. My state of Minnesota is also a national model for welfare reform. It is a national model, in part because we make sure welfare reform gets families out of poverty. How do we do this? Exactly the way President Bush and Secretary


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:20
Thompson would want us to do it: by putting people to work. But here’s the rub- it matters how families on welfare get to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one and use a broad range of services to make sure the family breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it might take a little longer that what the president is comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on welfare found that more than three-quarters have left welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable figures in other states. The federal government has twice cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job retention and advancement.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:21
An independent evaluation of Minnesota’s welfare reform pilot found it to be perhaps the most successful welfare reform effort in the nation. The evaluation found Minnesota’s program not only increased employment and earnings but also reduced poverty, reduced domestic abuse, reduced behavioral problems with kids and improved their school performance. It also found that marriage and marital stability increased as a result of higher family incomes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:22
The administration’s proposal would have Minnesota set all this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes sense to me that the states — and not the feds — are in the best position to make those decisions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:23
We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:24
I believe in accountable and responsive government, and have no problem with the federal government holding states accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe that in this case the people closest to the problem should be trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:25
Secretary Thompson, with the blessing of the president, seems to be taking us down a road that violates the tenets of states’ rights.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 42:26
Say it ain’t so, Tommy. As long as it’s working, why not let the states do our own thing?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 21, 2002

!TITLE:
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The President has not asked for this piece of legislation; he does not support it. We do not anticipate that it will be passed in the other body. But there is one good part of the bill, and that is the title, “Freedom Support.” We all support freedom. It is just that this bill does not support freedom. Really, it undermines the liberties and the taxes of many Americans in order to pump another in $1.2 billion into Afghanistan.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:2
One of the moral justifications, maybe, for rebuilding Afghanistan is that it was the American bombs that helped to destroy Afghanistan in our routing of the Taliban. But there is a lot of shortcomings in this method. Nation-building does not work. I think this will fail. I do not think it will help us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:3
I do not think for a minute that this is much different than social engineering that we try here in the U.S. with a lot of duress and a lot of problems; and now we are going to do it over there where we really do not understand the social conditions that exist, and it is not like here. Some, especially those in that part of the world, will see this as neo-colonialism because we are over there for a lot of different reasons. And even in the bill it states one of the reasons. It says, “We are to design an overall strategy to advance U.S. interests in Afghanistan.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:4
Well, I wonder what that means? Over 10 years ago there was an explicit desire and a statement made by the administration that until we had a unified government in Afghanistan, we could not build a gas pipeline across northern Afghanistan. And that is in our interests. Does that mean this is one of the motivations?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:5
I imagine a lot of people here in the Congress might say no, but that might be the ultimate outcome. It is said that this bill may cut down on the drug trade. But the Taliban was stronger against drugs than the Northern Alliance. Drug production is up since we’ve been involved this past year in Afghanistan.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:6
Madam Chairman, I think it is important to state first off that while it is true that the administration has not actively opposed this legislation, it certainly has not asked for nor does it support the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. It did not support the bill when we marked it up in the International Relations Committee, it did not support the bill after it was amended in Committee, and it does not support the bill today.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:7
Madam Chairman, perhaps the “Afghanistan Freedom Support Act” should more accurately be renamed the “Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act,” because this legislation essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I wonder whether we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years- so maybe we just should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a “coordinator.” After all, we can’t just give away such a huge sum without installing an American overseer to ensure we approve of all aspects of the fledgling Afghan government.

Madam Chairman, when we fill a nation’s empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose foreign standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation-building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and during that time American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:8
I am sure that supporters of this bill are well-intentioned, but judging from past experience this approach will fail to improve the lives of the average Afghan citizen. Though many will also attempt to claim that this bill is somehow about the attacks of 9/11, let’s not fool ourselves: nation-building and social engineering are what this bill is about. Most of the problems it seeks to address predate the 9/11 attacks and those it purports to assist had nothing to do with those attacks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:9
If we are operating under the premise that global poverty itself poses a national security threat to the United States, then I am afraid we have an impossible task ahead of us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:10
As is often the case, much of the money authorized by this bill will go toward lucrative contracts with well-connected private firms and individuals. In short, when you look past all the talk about building civil society in Afghanistan and defending against terrorism, this bill is laden with the usual corporate welfare and hand-outs to special interests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:11
Among other harmful things, this legislation dramatically expands the drug war. Under the group we have installed in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed. Now we are expected to go in and clean up the mess our allies have created. In addition, this bill will send some $60 million to the United Nations, to help fund its own drug eradication program. I am sure most Americans agree that we already send the United Nations too much of our tax money, yet this bill commits us to sending even more.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:12
The drug war has been a failure. Plan Colombia, an enormously expensive attempt to reduce drug production in that Andean nation, has actually resulted in a 25 percent increase in coca leaf and cocaine production. Does anyone still think our war on drugs there has been successful? Is it responsible to continue spending money on policies that do not work?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:13
The bill also reflects a disturbing effort by the Washington elite to conduct experiments in social engineering in Afghanistan. It demands at least five times that the Afghans create a government that is “broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative.” We are imposing race and gender quotas on a foreign government that have been found inappropriate and in some cases even illegal in the United States. Is this an appropriate activity to be carried out with taxpayer funds?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:14
Madam Chairman, the problem with nation-building and social-engineering, as experience tells us time and time again is that it simply doesn’t work. We cannot build multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, gender-sensitive civil society and good governance in Afghanistan on a top-down basis from afar. What this bill represents is a commitment to deepening involvement in Afghanistan and a determination to impose a political system on that country based on a blueprint drawn up thousands of miles away by Washington elites. Does anyone actually believe that we can buy Afghan democracy with even the staggering sum of 1.2 billion dollars? A real democracy is the product of shared values and the willingness of a population to demand and support it. None of these things can be purchased by a foreign power. What is needed in Afghanistan is not just democracy, but freedom- the two are not the same.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:15
Release of funds authorized by this legislation is dependent on the holding of a traditional Afghan assembly of tribal representatives –a “loya jirga” – as a first step toward democratization. It authorizes $10 million dollars to finance this meeting. That this traditional meeting will produce anything like a truly representative body is already in question, as we heard earlier this month that seven out of 33 influential tribal leaders have already announced they will boycott the meeting. Additionally, press reports have indicated that the U.S. government itself was not too long ago involved in an attempted assassination of a non-Taliban regional leader who happened to be opposed to the rule of the American-installed Hamid Karzai. More likely, this “loya jirga” will be a stage-managed showpiece, primarily convened to please Western donors. Is this any way to teach democracy?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:16
 Madam Chairman, some two decades ago the Soviet Union also invaded Afghanistan and attempted to impose upon the Afghan people a foreign political system. Some nine years and 15,000 Soviet lives later they retreated in disgrace, morally and financially bankrupt. During that time, we propped up the Afghan resistance with our weapons, money, and training, planting the seeds of the Taliban in the process. Now the former Soviet Union is gone, its armies long withdrawn from Afghanistan, and we’re left cleaning up the mess- yet we won’t be loved for it. No, we won’t get respect or allegiance from the Afghans, especially now that our bombs have rained down upon them. We will pay the bills, however, Afghanistan will become a tragic ward of the American state, another example of an interventionist foreign policy that is supposed to serve our national interests and gain allies, yet which does neither.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:17
I repeat that t he President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for long-term security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:18
Madam Chairman, over the last several days and almost continuously, as a matter of fact, many Members get up and talk about any expenditure or any tax cut as an attack on Social Security, but we do not hear this today because there is a coalition,
well built, to support this intervention and presumed occupation of Afghanistan. But the truth is, there are monetary and budget consequences for this. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:19
After this bill is passed, if this bill is to pass, we will be close to $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, not counting the military.  Now, that is an astounding amount of money, but it seems like it is irrelevant here. Twelve months ago, the national debt was
$365 billion less than it is today, and people say we are just getting away from having surpluses. Well, $365 billion is a huge deficit, and the national debt is going up at that rate. April revenues were down 30 percent from 1 year ago. The only way we
pay for programs like this is either we rob Social Security or we print the money, but both are very harmful to poor people and people living on a limited income. Our funds are not unlimited.  I know there is a lot of good intention; nobody in this body is saying we are going over there to cause mischief, but let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of reasons not to be all that optimistic about these wonderful results and what we are going to accomplish over there. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:20
Madam Chairman, earlier the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came up with an astounding reason for us to do this. He said that we owe this to Afghanistan. Now, I have heard all kinds of arguments for foreign aid and foreign intervention, but the fact that we owe this to Afghanistan? Do we know what we owe? We owe responsibility to the American taxpayer. We owe responsibility to the security of this country. 

One provision of this bill takes a $300 million line of credit from our DOD and just gives the President the authority to take $300 million of weapons away from us and give it to somebody in Afghanistan. Well, that dilutes our defense, that does not
help our defense. This is not beneficial. We do not need to have an occupation of Afghanistan for security of this country. There is no evidence for that. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:21
The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous.  My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:22
But I am terribly concerned that we will spend a lot of money, we will become deeply mired in Afghanistan, and we will not do a lot better than the Soviets did.  Now, that is a real possibility that we should not ignore. We say, oh, no, everything sounds rosy and we are going to do this, we are going to do it differently, and this time it is going to be okay. Well, if we look at the history of that land and that country, I would think that we should have second thoughts. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:23
It has been said that one of the reasons why we need this legislation is to help pay for drug eradication. Now, that is a good idea. That would be nice if we could do that. But the drug production has exploded since we have been there. In the last year,
it is just going wild. Well, that is even more reason we have to spend money because we contributed to the explosion of the drug production. There is money in this bill, and maybe some good will come of this; there is money in this bill that is going to
be used to teach the Afghan citizens not to use drugs. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:24
Mr. Speaker, if this is successful, if we teach the Afghan people not to use drugs, that would be wonderful.  Maybe then we can do something about the ravenous appetite of our people for drugs which is the basic cause of so much drug production. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:25
So to spend money on these kinds of programs I think is just a little bit of a stretch. Already there have been 33 tribal leaders that have said they will not attend this Loya Jirga, that they are not going to attend. The fact that we are going to spend millions
of dollars trying to gather these people together and tell them what to do with their country, I think the odds of producing a secure country are slim. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:26
Already in the papers just a few weeks ago it was reported in The Washington Post that our CIA made an attempt to assassinate a former prime minister of Afghanistan. He may have been a bum for all I know, but do Members think that sits well? He was not an ally of bin Laden, he was not a Taliban member, yet our CIA is over there getting involved. As a matter of fact, that is against our law, if that report is true. Yet, that is what the papers have reported. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:27
So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are
going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is
advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 43:28
I see this as a threat to our security. It does not reassure me one bit. This is what scares me. It scares me when we send troops into places like Vietnam and Korea and other places, because it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 21, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent, and OB-GYN who has delivered over three thousand babies, I certainly share the desire to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet. However, as a United States Congressman, I cannot support measures which exceed the limitations on constitutional power contained in Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to spend taxpayer funds to create new internet domains.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 44:2
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 44:3
The market is already creating solutions to many of these problems through the development of filtering software that responsible parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate materials. The best way to address this problem is by allowing this market process to develop, not by creating new government regulations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 44:4
In addition to creating new internet domains, Congress is also expanding federal wiretapping powers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should also remember that the Constitution creates only three federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Expansion of federal police power for crimes outside these well-defined areas thus violates the Constitution. In addition, expansion of federal wiretapping powers raises serious civil liberties concerns, as such powers easily can be abused by federal officials.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 44:5
I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposing The Amendment

!DATE:
21 May 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:2
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for longterm security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:3
Madam Chairman, over the last several days and almost continuously, as a matter of fact, many Members get up and talk about any expenditure or any tax cut as an attack on Social Security, but we do not hear this today because there is a coalition, well built, to support this intervention and presumed occupation of Afghanistan. But the truth is, there are monetary and budget consequences for this.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:4
After this bill is passed, if this bill is to pass, we will be close to $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, not counting the military. Now, that is an astounding amount of money, but it seems like it is irrelevant here. Twelve months ago, the national debt was $365 billion less than it is today, and people say we are just getting away from having surpluses. Well, $365 billion is a huge deficit, and the national debt is going up at that rate. April revenues were down 30 percent from 1 year ago. The only way we pay for programs like this is either we rob Social Security or we print the money, but both are very harmful to poor people and people living on a limited income. Our funds are not unlimited.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:5
I know there is a lot of good intention; nobody in this body is saying we are going over there to cause mischief, but let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of reasons not to be all that optimistic about these wonderful results and what we are going to accomplish over there.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:6
Madam Chairman, earlier the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER) came up with an astounding reason for us to do this. He said that we owe this to Afghanistan. Now, I have heard all kinds of arguments for foreign aid and foreign intervention, but the fact that we owe this to Afghanistan? Do we know what we owe? We owe responsibility to the American taxpayer. We owe responsibility to the security of this country.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:7
One provision of this bill takes a $300 million line of credit from our DOD and just gives the President the authority to take $300 million of weapons away from us and give it to somebody in Afghanistan. Well, that dilutes our defense, that does not help our defense. This is not beneficial. We do not need to have an occupation of Afghanistan for security of this country. There is no evidence for that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:8
The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:9
My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:10
But I am terribly concerned that we will spend a lot of money, we will become deeply mired in Afghanistan, and we will not do a lot better than the Soviets did.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:11
Now, that is a real possibility that we should not ignore. We say, oh, no, everything sounds rosy and we are going to do this, we are going to do it differently, and this time it is going to be okay. Well, if we look at the history of that land and that country, I would think that we should have second thoughts.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:12
It has been said that one of the reasons why we need this legislation is to help pay for drug eradication. Now, that is a good idea. That would be nice if we could do that. But the drug production has exploded since we have been there. In the last year, it is just going wild. Well, that is even more reason we have to spend money because we contributed to the explosion of the drug production. There is money in this bill, and maybe some good will come of this; there is money in this bill that is going to be used to teach the Afghan citizens not to use drugs.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. PAUL was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:13
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if this is successful, if we teach the Afghan people not to use drugs, that would be wonderful. Maybe then we can do something about the ravenous appetite of our people for drugs which is the basic cause of so much drug production.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:14
So to spend money on these kinds of programs I think is just a little bit of a stretch. Already there have been 33 tribal leaders that have said they will not attend this Loya Jirga, that they are not going to attend. The fact that we are going to spend millions of dollars trying to gather these people together and tell them what to do with their country, I think the odds of producing a secure country are slim.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:15
Already in the papers just a few weeks ago it was reported in The Washington Post that our CIA made an attempt to assassinate a former prime minister of Afghanistan. He may have been a bum for all I know, but do Members think that sits well? He was not an ally of bin Laden, he was not a Taliban member, yet our CIA is over there getting involved. As a matter of fact, that is against our law, if that report is true. Yet, that is what the papers have reported.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:16
So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 45:17
I see this as a threat to our security. It does not reassure me one bit. This is what scares me. It scares me when we send troops into places like Vietnam and Korea and other places, because it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 22, 2002

!TITLE:
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate Older Americans Month by introducing two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 46:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, "taxing" benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 46:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 46:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 22, 2002

!TITLE:
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. Speaker, HR 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:2
I primarily object to the provisions in HR 3717 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These "premiums," which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks who experience difficulties meeting their commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions which follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:3
In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress likely will transfer funds from general revenues into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which could make all taxpayers liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would require separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress saying "No" to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out their weaker competitors?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:4
Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago, and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, pointed out in a study for the CATO Institute, the FDIC’s history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC’s poor track record in protecting individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking failures. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators’ records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:5
Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress inevitably will blame it on regulators who were "asleep at the switch." Yet, most politicians continue to believe the very regulators whose incompetence (or worse) either caused or contributed to the problem will somehow prevent future crises!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government insures their deposits?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3717 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors’ incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Commemorating The 50th Anniversary Of The Incorporation Of The City Of Clute, Texas

!DATE:
22 May 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 22, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Clute, Texas, which will be celebrated on June 2, 2002. Clute is a city of just over 10,000 citizens in Brazoria County on the coast of Texas. Clute has a very rich heritage and played an important role in the development of the proud state of Texas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:2
The City of Clute began as land deeded to Alexander Calvit by Stephen F. Austin when holdings were parceled out to the “Old 300,” the first settlers in Texas. These settlers had to be tough as living on the Texas coastland in the early days was not for the weak or faint of heart.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:3
Though the living was hard these early settlers contributed many things to the advancement of our state. The first milled lumber plantation house was built in Clute. Bricks used to build homes and buildings all over the coast of Texas were made from the high grade clay that was found only in Clute. That clay was used to make structures at Ft. Velasco, where in 1832, the Brazoria Militia staged the first battle for Texas Independence.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:4
Now, many years later, Clute is still growing and achieving. Citizens raise their families in quiet and serene neighborhoods while contributing to some of the greatest chemical and industrial achievements in modern America.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:5
The face of Clute has changed but the people are still the same brave, hardworking Texans that helped mold the Republic.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 48:6
I am pleased to extend my best wishes to the people of Clute as the town celebrates its 50th birthday of incorporation and over 170 years after habitation by the original settlers of Texas. I am sure all my colleagues join me in extending congratulations and wishes for many more years of progress to the community of Clute, Texas.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 23, 2002

!TITLE:
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern ) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton ) for bringing this to us. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 days, a lot about the deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony, especially because it comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the aisle, that do a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the debate went on and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of politics in the debate.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:2
The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in central America and, specifically, in Colombia.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:3
Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago we appropriated $1.6 billion, and we went into Colombia with the intent of reducing drug usage. Instead it is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They sprayed 210,000 acres, and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It reminds me of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and drug production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our drug program in Colombia.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:4
But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a military operation in Colombia.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:5
What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:6
This dilutes our national defense, it dilutes our forces, exposes our troops, takes away our weapons, increases the expenditures. If we ignore this issue I guess we can go back to demagoging the national debt limit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:7
So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in appropriation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:8
So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:9
It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the Persian Gulf to protect “our” oil. Why are we involved with making and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 49:10
So I would say, once again, please take a look at this amendment. This amendment is a “yes” vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
May 24, 2002

!TITLE:
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. Speaker, supporters of fiscal responsibility, a rational foreign policy, and constitutional government can find little, it anything, to support in the Supplemental Appropriations bill (HR 4775). HR 4775 enlarges the federal deficit, increases the size of the federal government, jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund, and, by removing resources from individuals and placing them under government control, depresses economic growth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:2
Despite being sold as a national security bill, most of the spending in this bill bears little relationship to protecting the American people from terrorism. For example, this bill contains funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal courts, and various welfare programs. In addition, this bill spends millions on unconstitutional foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, some may say that foreign aid promotes national security, but if that were true America would be the most beloved country on earth. After all, almost every country in the world has in some way benefited from Congress’ willingness to send the American people’s money oversees.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:3
Even much of the military spending in this bill has no relationship to legitimate national security needs. Instead it furthers an interventionist foreign policy which is neither constitutional nor in the best interests of the American people. For example, this supplemental contains a stealth attempt to shift our policy toward Colombia, expanding our already failed drug war to include direct participation in Colombia’s 38-year civil war. Though a bill on Colombia was scheduled for markup in the International Relations committee, for some reason it was pulled at the last minute. Therefore, the committee has not been able to debate this policy shift on Colombia. We are instead expected just not to notice, I suppose, that the policy shift has been included in this bill.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:4
Our expanded interventionism in Colombia is called "counterterrorism," but no one has even attempted to demonstrate that Colombia’s civil war poses even a remote terrorist threat to the United States. In fact, the only terrorist threat from Colombia I have seen actually counsels against our deepening involvement. According to House International Relations Committee briefing materials made available last month:




            !CITE:
            2002 Ron Paul 50:5
            "We have hundreds of temporary duty personnel in Colombia on any given day, in addition to our agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), military advisors, contractors, and embassy personnel. If U.S. presence expands to help Colombia fight terrorism as well, these alarming IRA explosives tactics could be used directly and intentionally against American facilities and employees." 




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:6
If anything, this is an argument against getting more deeply involved in Colombia’s internal affairs, as it rightly recognizes that our involvement will only inflame the other side and thus open the door to retaliation against our interventionism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:7
The war on drugs in Colombia is failing miserably. Under "Plan Colombia," coca production has increased 25 percent in the period between 2000 and 2001. The production of cocaine increased by roughly the same amount. More cocaine was coming out of Colombia into the United States at the end of 2001, during Plan Colombia, than at the end of 2000, before Plan Colombia. Is this a reason to expand our involvement into Colombia’s civil war?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:8
US commercial interests — not national security — are a big factor in our shifting policy toward Colombia. We have already seen an administration request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Caño-Limon Pipeline - jointly owned by the Colombian national oil company and Occidental Petroleum. This supplemental will provide for the first installment of this money to be paid to protect Occidental’s pipeline.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:9
We are being dragged into a civil war in Colombia that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with international terrorism. Those who want to send American money and troops into the Colombian quagmire do not want debate, because their claims that a 38 year civil war somehow has something to do with 9/11 ring hollow.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:10
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must object to this bill on the grounds that it enables further increases in government spending by providing a method to increases the debt ceiling. It is bad enough that Congress is increasing the debt limit, but this rule provides a procedure whereby the debt limit will be raised in conference, away from public scrutiny. It makes a mockery of open government to impose more government debt on hardworking Americans and future generations by subterfuge.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 50:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 4775 contains increases in unconstitutional spending on wide variety of welfare programs and foreign aid. It also ignores the true security interests of the American people by spending valuable resources on a flawed Colombian policy. This bill also creates conditions for further expansions in spending by providing a procedure to raise the debt ceiling safe from public scrutiny. HR 4775 thus threatens the liberty and prosperity of all Americans so I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
May 31, 2002

!TITLE:
AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY O’NEILL AND FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 51:1
Why Does the IMF Prohibit Gold-Backed Currency for its Member States?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 51:2
(Congressman Ron Paul sent this letter to both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank in April.  Neither has responded)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 51:3
Dear Sirs: I am writing regarding Article 4, Section 2b of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s Articles of Agreement. As you may be aware, this language prohibits countries who are members of the IMF from linking their currency to gold. Thus, the IMF is forbidding countries suffering from an erratic monetary policy from adopting the most effective means of stabilizing their currency. This policy could delay a country’s recovery from an economic crisis and retard economic growth, thus furthering economic and political instability.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 51:4
I would greatly appreciate an explanation from both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve of the reasons the United States has continued to acquiesce in this misguided policy. Please contact Mr. Norman Singleton, my legislative director, if you require any further information regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 51:5
Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives


2002 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 5, 2002

!TITLE:
Beware Dollar Weakness



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:1

Mr. Speaker, I have for several years come to the House floor to express my concern for the value of the dollar. It has been, and is, my concern that we in the Congress have not met our responsibility in this regard. The constitutional mandate for Congress should only permit silver and gold to be used as legal tender and has been ignored for decades and has caused much economic pain for many innocent Americans. Instead of maintaining a sound dollar, Congress has by both default and deliberate action promoted a policy that systematically depreciates the dollar. The financial markets are keenly aware of the minute-by-minute fluctuations of all the fiat currencies and look to these swings in value for an investment advantage. This type of anticipation and speculation does not exist in a sound monetary system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:2
But Congress should be interested in the dollar fluctuation not as an investment but because of our responsibility for maintaining a sound and stable currency, a requirement for sustained economic growth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:3
The consensus now is that the dollar is weakening and the hope is that the drop in its value will be neither too much nor occur too quickly; but no matter what the spin is, a depreciating currency, one that is losing its value against goods, services, other currencies and gold, cannot be beneficial and may well be dangerous. A sharply dropping dollar, especially since it is the reserve currency of the world, can play havoc with the entire world economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:4
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:5
History and economic law are on the side of the gold. Paper money always fails. Unfortunately, though, this occurs only after many innocent people have suffered the consequences of the fraud that paper money represents. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax levied more on the poor and those on fixed incomes than the wealthy, the bankers, or the corporations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:6
In the past 2 years, gold has been the strongest currency throughout the world in spite of persistent central bank selling designed to suppress the gold price in hopes of hiding the evil caused by the inflationary policies that all central bankers follow. This type of depreciation only works for short periods; economic law always rules over the astounding power and influence of central bankers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:7
That is what is starting to happen, and trust in the dollar is being lost. The value of the dollar this year is down 18 percent compared to gold. This drop in value should not be ignored by Congress. We should never have permitted this policy that was deliberately designed to undermine the value of the currency.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:8
There are a lot of reasons the market is pushing down the value of the dollar at this time. But only one is foremost. Current world economic and political conditions lead to less trust in the dollar’s value. Economic strength here at home is questionable and causes concerns. Our huge foreign debt is more than $2 trillion, and our current account deficit is now 4 percent of GDP and growing. Financing this debt requires borrowing $1.3 billion per day from overseas. But these problems are ancillary to the real reason that the dollar must go down in value. For nearly 7 years the U.S. has had the privilege of creating unlimited amounts of dollars with foreigners only too eager to accept them to satisfy our ravenous appetite for consumer items. The markets have yet to discount most of this monetary inflation. But they are doing so now; and for us to ignore what is happening, we do so at the Nation’s peril. Price inflation and much higher interest rates are around the corner.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:9
Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year’s record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:10
Trust in paper is difficult to measure and anticipate, but long-term value in gold is dependable and more reliably assessed. Printing money and creating artificial credit may temporarily lower interest rates, but it also causes the distortions of malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation. These conditions cause instability, and market forces eventually overrule the intentions of the central bankers. That is when the apparent benefits of the easy money disappear, such as we dramatically have seen with the crash of the dot-coms and the Enrons and many other stocks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:11
Now it is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve’s mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 52:12
Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare

!DATE:
5 June 2002

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), who occasionally has different philosophical points of view from me, but I am pleased to have him speak in opposition to the Export-Import Bank.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at that particular article too often any more.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:2
Also for moral reasons, I object to this. Even if we accepted the idea that we should interfere and be involved in this type of activity, it is unfair because the little guy gets squeezed and the big guy gets all of the money. It is not morally fair because it cannot be.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:3
One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:4
I am a strong advocate for free trade, and for that reason I think this bill should not be passed. There are good economic reasons not to support this. Because some who favor this bill argue that some of these companies are doing risky things and they do not qualify in the ordinary banking system for these loans and, therefore, they need a little bit of help. That is precisely when we should not be helping. If there is a risk, it is telling us there is something wrong and we should not do it. It is transferring the liability from the company to the taxpayer. So the risk argument does not hold water at all.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:5
The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets squeezed. The funds are taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big corporations. Many times it doesn’t even do that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:6
Take a look at Enron. We have mentioned Enron quite a few times already. If we add up all of the subsidies to Enron, it adds up to $1.9 billion. That is if we add up the subsidies from OPIC as well. And look at what Enron did. They ran a “few” risks, and then they lost it. Who was left holding the bag? The taxpayers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 53:7
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. If Members are for free trade, they will vote against this bill, and will vote for true free trade.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 11, 2002

!TITLE:
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD HEALTH CARE



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children’s health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child’s health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:2
The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide their employees health insurance. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on, parents whose children have a medical condition, such as cancer or a physical disability, which requires long-term or specialized health care.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:3
As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code: Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress’ refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes their only recourse to health care is the local emergency room.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:4
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concern that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation’s already overcrowded emergency room facilities would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:5
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 dollars a year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Clearly this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:6
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs; while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief for low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child, in order to help them better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue, but who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 54:8
The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 11, 2002

!TITLE:
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call my colleagues’ attention to the following article entitled “Bad Tax Policy: You Can Run .....” by Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Mitchell discusses the practice of companies reincorporating in foreign jurisdictions to reduce their tax liability. As Mr. Mitchell points out, reincorporation benefits shareholders and American workers. This is because reincorporation In a low-tax foreign jurisdiction makes companies more competitive, thus enabling the companies to create new and better jobs for working Americans. Furthermore, reincorporation helps protect American companies from corporate takeovers by foreign investors. America’s anti-competitive tax system is a major reason why several US companies have been taken over by foreign business interests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:2
In the vast majority of cases, when a company moves its corporate headquarters to a foreign jurisdiction, it maintains its physical operations in America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Stanley Company, whose recently-announced decision to incorporate in Bermuda has caused much handwringing over reincorporation, will not be laying off a single American worker as a consequence of their action!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:3
Though reincorporation benefits American investors and workers, some of my colleagues have objected to reincorporation because this action deprives the government of revenue. Some have even gone so far as to question the patriotism of companies that reincorporate. However, there is nothing unpatriotic about trying to minimize one’s tax burden to enhance economic competitiveness. In fact, it could be argued that since reincorporation helps companies create new jobs and expand the American economy, those who reincorporate are behaving patriotically.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:4
One also could argue that it is those who oppose reincorporation who do not grasp the essence of the American system. After all, two of the main principles underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are limited government and respect for private property. In contrast, opponents of reincorporation implicitly assume that the government owns all of a nation’s assets; therefore taxpayers never should take any actions to deny government what the politicians have determined to be their “fair share.” Mr. Speaker, this philosophy has more in common with medieval feudalism than with the constitutional republic created by the drafters of the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Mitchell’s article, which forcefully makes the case that taxing offshore income is economically destructive. Such taxation also is inconsistent with the respect for individual liberty and private property rights which forms the foundation of America’s constitutional republic, as well as a threat to the sovereign right of nations to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside national borders. I hope my colleagues will reject efforts to subject companies that reincorporate overseas to burdensome new taxes and regulations. Expanding federal power in order to prevent companies from reincorporating will only kill American jobs and further weaken America’s economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:6
[From the Washington Times, May 8, 2002]
BAD TAX POLICY: YOU CAN RUN .....
(By Daniel Mitchell)
The worst Supreme Court decision of all time? One of the leading candidates has to be the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by escaping to nonslave states.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:7
Instead, they were considered property and had to be returned to their “owners.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:8
Some U.S. companies soon may be treated in a similar manner, thanks to legislation being touted by Sens. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, and Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:9
It all starts with the Internal Revenue Code, which forces U.S.-based companies to pay an extra layer of tax on income earned in other countries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:10
In an effort to protect the interests of workers, shareholders and consumers, some of these companies are escaping bad U.S. tax law by rechartering in Bermuda.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:11
This is a win-win situation for America. We get to keep factories and headquarters in America, and our companies remain on a level playing field with businesses based in Europe and elsewhere.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:12
Not so fast, Sens. Baucus and Grassley are saying. They want to stop “corporate expatriations,” even though they keep American jobs in America and help U.S. companies compete with their counterparts in Europe and Asia.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:13
Their legislation would forbid U.S. companies from re-chartering in countries with better tax laws.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:14
The politicians who support this are acting as if these companies belonged to the government. Yet when House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, for instance, accuses them of being "unpatriotic," he never explains what’s so patriotic about higher taxes and noncompetitive tax policy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:15
Republicans are doing their share of business-bashing, too. Mr. Grassley claims that corporate expatriations are :immoral,'' as if companies would be moral if they instead kept their U.S. charters and fired some of their workers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:16
If politicians are upset that some companies want to recharter, they should blame themselves for trying to tax “worldwide” income. An American firm competing against a Dutch firm for a contract in Ireland, for instance, must pay a 35 percent tax on its income &#ndash; and the lion’s share goes to the IRS.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:17
The Dutch firm, by contrast, pays only the 10 percent Irish tax on its Irish-source income because the Netherlands doesn’t tax income earned outside its borders.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:18
Before giving the IRS more power, politicians should consider the following:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:19
Expatriation helps control government waste. High-tax California can’t stop companies from moving to low-tax Nevada. Knowing this helps deter the big-spenders in the state capitol from wasting even more money. The politicians in Massachusetts must exercise some restraint because they know local businesses can flee to low-tax New Hampshire. Nations also should be subject to market discipline. This is why Washington politicians shouldn’t stop companies from escaping bad U.S. tax law.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:20
Expatriation protects American jobs. Rechartering in another jurisdiction doesn’t mean factories will go overseas. Nor does it require a company to move its headquarters. It simply means a company is chartered under the laws of a different jurisdiction, much as many American companies are chartered in Delaware, but operate factories and have their home offices in other states. In the case of expatriations, the newly formed foreign company still maintains its U.S. operations, but now won’t have to fire workers since it can compete more effectively with overseas businesses.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:21
Expatriation is not tax evasion. All corporations, regardless of where they’re based, pay tax to the IRS on all profits they earn in the United States. This is true of U.S.-based companies, and it’s true of all foreign-based companies- including those that expatriate. All that changes is that expatriating companies no longer have to pay taxes on income earned outside America’s borders. Since worldwide taxation is misguided tax policy, this is a positive result. Indeed, every tax reform plan, including the flat tax, is based on this common-sense principle of “territorial” taxation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 55:22
Now is hardly the time, with the economy in the midst of recovery, for Washington politicians to make U.S. companies less competitive. Nor is it the time to give the IRS the power to prohibit businesses from rechartering in jurisdictions with more sensible tax laws. Instead of treating companies as if they’re federal property, Sens. Grassley and Baucus should be fixing the problems in the tax code.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 13, 2002

!TITLE:
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 56:4
As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 24, 2002

!TITLE:
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:1

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues’ attention to a recent article by Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, published in the Los Angeles Times. In this article, Mr. Ritter makes a salient point that deserves careful and serious consideration in this body: how will it be possible to achieve the stated administration goal of getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq when the administration has made it known that it intends to assassinate the Iraqi leader?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:2
If nothing else, Saddam Hussein has proven himself a survivor. Does anyone believe that he will allow inspectors back into his country knowing that any one of them might kill him? Is it the intention of the administration to get inspectors back into Iraq and thus answers to lingering and critical questions regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, or is the intent to invade that country regardless of the near total absence of information and actually make it impossible for Suddam Hussein to accept the inspectors?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:3
Mr. Ritter, who as former chief UN inspector in Iraq probably knows that country better than any of us here, made some excellent points in a recent meeting with Republican members of Congress. According to Mr. Ritter, no American-installed regime could survive in Iraq. Interestingly, Mr. Ritter noted that though his rule is no doubt despotic, Saddam Hussein has been harsher toward Islamic fundamentalism than any other Arab regime. He added that any U.S. invasion to remove Saddam from power would likely open the door to an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. That can hardly be viewed in a positive light here in the United States. Is a policy that replaces a bad regime with a worse regime the wisest course to follow?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:4
Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:5
Similarly, proponents of a US invasion of Iraq often cite the Kurds in the northern part of that country as a Northern Alliance-like ally, who will do much of our fighting on the ground and unseat Saddam. But just last week the Washington Times reported that neither of the two rival Kurdish groups in northern Iraq want anything to do with an invasion of Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:6
In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining quiescent in the face of the administration’s seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a “failure of American democracy.” Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:7
[From the Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2002]
BEHIND "PLOT" ON HUSSEIN, A SECRET AGENDA
(By Scott Ritter)
President Bush has reportedly authorized the CIA to use all of the means at its disposal- including U.S. military special operations forces and CIA paramilitary teams- to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. According to reports, the CIA is to view any such plan as "preparatory" for a larger military strike.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:8
Congressional leaders from both parties have greeted these reports with enthusiasm. In their rush to be seen as embracing the president’s hard-line stance on Iraq, however, almost no one in Congress has questioned why a supposedly covert operation would be made public, thus undermining the very mission it was intended to accomplish.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:9
It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq’s foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use- or abuse- of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:10
I recall during my time as a chief inspector in Iraq the dozens of extremely fit “missile experts” and “logistics specialists” who frequented my inspection teams and others. Drawn from U.S. units such as Delta Force or from CIA paramilitary teams such as the Special Activities Staff (both of which have an ongoing role in the conflict in Afghanistan), these specialists had a legitimate part to play in the difficult cat-and-mouse effort to disarm Iraq. So did the teams of British radio intercept operators I ran in Iraq from 1996 to 1998- which listened in on the conversations of Hussein’s inner circle- and the various other intelligence specialists who were part of the inspection effort.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:11
The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation’s security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:12
As early as 1992, the Iraqis viewed the teams I led inside Iraq as a threat to the safety of their president. They were concerned that my inspections were nothing more than a front for a larger effort to eliminate their leader.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:13
Those concerns were largely baseless while I was in Iraq. Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:14
The leaked CIA covert operations plan effectively kills any chance of inspectors returning to Iraq, and it closes the door on the last opportunity for shedding light on the true state of affairs regarding any threat in the form of Iraq weapons of mass destruction.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:15
Absent any return of weapons inspectors, no one seems willing to challenge the Bush administration’s assertions of an Iraqi threat. If Bush has a factual case against Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction, he hasn’t made it yet.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:16
Can the Bush administration substantiate any of its claims that Iraq continues to pursue efforts to reacquire its capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, which was dismantled and destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998? The same question applies to nuclear weapons. What facts show that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons aspirations?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:17
Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talking about? These questions are valid, and if the case for war is to be made, they must be answered with more than speculative rhetoric.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:18
Congress has seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration’s pursuit of war against Iraq. The one roadblock to an all- out U.S. assault would be weapons inspectors reporting on the facts inside Iraq. Yet without any meaningful discussion and debate by Congress concerning the nature of the threat posed by Baghdad, war seems all but inevitable.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 57:19
The true target of the supposed CIA plan may not be Hussein but rather the weapons inspection program itself. The real casualty is the last chance to avoid bloody conflict.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act

!DATE:
25 June 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the policy behind H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, is unobjectionable. Given the high rates of recidivism among sex criminals, Wit is certainly legitimate to take steps to reduce the likelihood that a paroled sex criminal will commit further crimes. In fact, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 58:2
However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local governments.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 58:3
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 58:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government’s constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 25, 2002

!TITLE:
Introduction of the Police Security Protection Act



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help America’s law enforcement officers by introducing the Police Security Protection Act. This legislation provides police officers with a tax credit for the purchase of armored vests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 59:2
As recent events have reminded us, professional law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day. Reducing the tax liability of law enforcement officers so they can afford armored vests is one of the best ways Congress can help these brave men and women. After all, an armored vest literally could make the difference between life or death for a police officer, I hope my colleagues will join me in helping our nation’s law enforcement officers by cosponsoring the Police Security Protection Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 25, 2002

!TITLE:
Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act:



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:2
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewer charges, or debris pick up.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:3
Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, does not even mention the fact that these volunteers very possibly could be called into a situation where they have to put their lives on the line.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:4
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America’s rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by imposing new taxes upon him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial negative impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer must be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:5
This legislation would rectify the situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:6
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local, as opposed to federal, law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of local officers, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 60:7
President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhance public safety. Shouldn’t Congress do its part by reducing taxes that discourage public safety volunteerism? Shouldn’t Congress also show its appreciation to police officers and fire fighters by reducing their taxes? I believe the answer to both of these questions is a resounding "Yes," and therefore I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Interstate And Foreign Travel For Sex With Children

!DATE:
25 June 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers little solution. First among these is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 61:2
Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. It is possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 61:3
At a time when federal resources are stretched to the limit, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad but would require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act

!DATE:
25 June 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent and OB–GYN who has had the privilege of delivering over 4,000 babies, I share the revulsion of all decent people at child pornography. Those who would destroy the innocence of children by using them in sexuallyexplicit material deserve the harshest punishment. However, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (H.R. 4623) exceeds Congress’ constitutional power and does nothing to protect any child from being abused and exploited by pornographers. Instead, H.R. 4623 redirects law enforcement resources to investigations and prosecutions of “virtual” pornography which, by definition, do not involve the abuse or exploitation of children. Therefore, H.R. 4623 may reduce law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute legitimate cases of child pornography.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 62:2
H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 62:3
Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 62:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues’ revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of H.R. 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. H.R. 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement an constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 4954

!DATE:
27 June 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 4954 or the alternative allow seniors the ability to control their own health care. Instead both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine what prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. The only difference is that alternative puts seniors under the control of the federal bureaucy, while H.R. 4954 gives this power to “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 4954 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 4954 contains several good provisions addressing the Congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempting to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 4954 requires seniors to enroll in a prescription benefit management company (PBM), which is the equivalent of an HMO. Under this plan, the PBM will have the authority to determine which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as PBM bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in PBM plans), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” PBM bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind my colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services which differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:4
Since H.R. 4954 extends federal subsidies (and federal regulations) to private insurers, the effects of this program will be felt even by those seniors with private insurance. Thus, H.R. 4954 will in actuality reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:5
I must express my disappointment that this legislation does nothing to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a government- granted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress could do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:6
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:7
The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 4954. The only difference between the two is that under the alternative, seniors will be denied the choice for pharmaceuticals by bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rather than by a federally subsidized PMB bureaucrat.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:8
Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better than a “choice” between whether a private-orpublic sector bureaucrat will control their health care. Meaningful prescription drug legislation should be based on the principles of maximum choice and flexibility for senior citizens. For example, my H.R. 2268 provides seniors the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription drugs in a manner that increases seniors’ control over their own health care.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:9
H.R. 2268 removes the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program. Medicare MSAs consist of a special saving account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Unlike the plans contained in H.R. 4504, and the Democratic alternative, Medicare MSAs allow seniors to use Medicare funds to obtain the prescription drugs that fit their unique needs. Medicare MSAs also allow seniors to use Medicare funds for other services not available under traditional Medicare, such as mammograms.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:10
Medicare MSAs will also ensure senior access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:11
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to American’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC — based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 63:12
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 4954 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over what prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 4954 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors prescription drugs, while the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors what prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command-andcontrol approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation giving all seniors access to Medicare Medicaid Savings Accounts.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 27, 2002

!TITLE:
Is America a Police State?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. Speaker: Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:2
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:3
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:4
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:5
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:6
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:7
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:8
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:9
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:10
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I’m sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:11
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:12
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:13
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there’s any danger that we’re moving in that direction.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:14
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:15
Once it’s discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it’s too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:16
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:17
  Let me make a few observations:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:18
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:19
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:20
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:21
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What’s the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:22
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others’ identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:23
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:24
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:25
Because government pays for much of our health care, it’s conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one’s health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:26
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:27
The states do exactly as they’re told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:28
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don’t see the guns, but we all know they’re there, and we all know we can’t fight "City Hall," especially if it’s "Uncle Sam."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:29
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:30
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it’s much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:31
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:32
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:33
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today’s laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:34
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:35
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:36
All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:37
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:38
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:39
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I’m sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we’re passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:40
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:41
I’m sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:42
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don’t sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there’s a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we’re not the target because we’re "free and prosperous".


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:43
The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we’re not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we’ll talk about freedom.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:44
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it’s all nonsense. We’re looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you’re not that person." Believe me, I understand that argument; it’s just that I don’t agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:45
That’s not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:46
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I’m sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we’re moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we’re moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:47
That’s why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:48
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:49
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:50
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we’re not a free society.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:51
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:52
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:53
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:54
Who’s winning this war anyway?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:55
To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:56
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don’t need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:57
I’m concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:58
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:59
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We’re rich, we’re free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:60
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because: -We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:61
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China’s navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S. territory.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:62
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:63
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:64
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous"- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I’m convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:65
  The question that one day must be answered is this:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:66
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:67
If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:68
This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I’ve made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:69
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:70
I’m sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:71
Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won’t happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:72
Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn’t we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:73
President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy’s capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that’s what diplomats are supposed to do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:74
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today’s conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It’s now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:75
A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:76
There’s no purpose in targeting us unless there’s a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:77
It’s a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That’s good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:78
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:79
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:80
Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:81
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:82
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:83
If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:84
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don’t jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it’s not a real attack, then it’s a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:85
Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:86
There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:87
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:88
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:89
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:90
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:91
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we’re king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:92
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we’re dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone’s head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: "Let’s march on Baghdad."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:93
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:94
Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today’s legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:95
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:96
- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government’s surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:97
-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:98
- The federalization of all airline security employees. -Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:99
- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:100
- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:101
- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:102
Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:103
Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:104
There’s no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:105
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:106
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation’s problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:107
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:108
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:109
I’m sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can’t and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:110
But that’s exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It’s a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn’t entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:111
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:112
This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:113
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we’re just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it’s not capable of doing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:114
Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington’s efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I’m convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let’s pray that this concern will never materialize.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:115
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people’s lives.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:116
Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:117
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:118
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn’t have the foggiest notion of what they’re dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that’s true, but I’m optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:119
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it’s our responsibility to manage a world American empire.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:120
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules – whether foreign or domestic.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 64:121
In a free society, the government’s job is simply to protect liberty – the people do the rest. Let’s not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let’s reject the police state.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
June 27, 2002

!TITLE:
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article “Unintended Consequences” by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron’s magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:2
In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan’s article to my colleagues. I hope the author’s explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:3
m
From Barron’s, June 24, 2002
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
By Thomas G. Donlan
It’s harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a “transitional government,” the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:4
A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:5
Karzai’s previous “interim administration” had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:6
That’s what the Taliban did for most of the years that the mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world’s opium supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit industry.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:7
In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high production in 2000.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:8
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America’s undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:9
This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be used to corrupt police in every country where the trade reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their habits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:10
But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:11
Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department’s list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:12
The currents don’t always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:13
In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, "I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen," and then warning the viewers, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:14
Bummer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:15
Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government – even police. That’s how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:16
It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of retail, it’s time to change the laws.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 65:17
Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance international terrorists is even more foolish.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
July 9, 2002

!TITLE:
Has Capitalism Failed?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:1
It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government- for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:2
So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market."  No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:3
What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:4
When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:5
Nixon was right- once- when he declared "We’re all Keynesians now." All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:6
But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policymakers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan’s economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we’re not careful- and so far we’ve not been- we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:7
In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, "the ultimate Maestro." Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:8
Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:9
Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn’t occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to "prevent" such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more Keynesian useless regulations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:10
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military- industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:11
To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names- Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:12
What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:13
First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:14
Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:15
But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:16
So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:17
This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:18
If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:19
We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it’s deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:20
Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:21
These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 66:22
Capitalism didn’t give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it’s not proactive. Congress’ job is to get out of the way.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 2896

!DATE:
10 July 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I would like to mention that this is essentially the same amendment that I had prepared to offer, an amendment that I put into the RECORD 2 days ago. But I will support this amendment because it is essentially doing what I was anxious to do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:2
Shortly after 9–11, as a matter of fact, on September 17, I introduced legislation into this body, H.R. 2896. It would have taken care of this problem in a more conclusive way, and it would have removed all the prohibitions and legalized, once again, the right of property owners to defend their property.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:3
Of course, that would be the ultimate solution, as far as I am concerned, because we are moving in a direction, unfortunately, towards more dependence on government and government regulation, and government programs that allow weapons in a cockpit.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:4
An example I like to use, which I think is an accurate example, if we look at the inner cities, guns are denied to the citizens. There are a lot of police and there is a lot of crime. If we look to the suburbs and the rural areas, there are essentially no police, there are a lot of guns in the homes, and there are essentially no crimes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:5
That principle should be applied to the airlines. It should be applied because guns can prevent crime, and we should allow them to be placed in the hands of the owners. I have a tie that is a favorite tie of mine, and it has a picture of the Bill of Rights, but it has a stamp over it which says, “void where prohibited by law.” I think we do too much of that around here.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:6
A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9–11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:7
In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot more.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:8
Another example of how private property could work was the recent example at LAX Airport. Private owners of an airline assumed responsibility for security at the gate. Many lives were probably saved with El Al guards, private guards with private weapons, that tragically are denied to American airlines. Because of an agreement between one foreign airline and the U.S. Department of Transportation, it has been given permission to protect their people better than we are allowed to protect ourselves. That to me just seems downright foolish, and I think we in the Congress should demand our rights of the Second Amendment and insist on the responsibility of property owners to protect their property and to protect our lives.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:9
We are moving in that direction, and El Al deserves definite compliments, but we deserve deep scrutiny. Why do we permit a foreign airline to provide more security for their people than we are allowed in our country?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:10
The best step in the world, of course, would be to pass my bill, H.R. 2896, which would just legalize once again the Second Amendment and allow our airlines to make the decision, and let the people decide. The airlines that say, we have guns in the cockpit, I would go fly that airline; if they say no, we do not believe in guns, let it be.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 67:11
We need to, once again, believe in America, believe in freedom, believe in the Bill of Rights, and let the people take care of so many of these problems instead of getting in the way. This bill, fortunately, is helping to get the government out of the way. That is why I support it.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Commending Efforts Of John Keating, Joe Sapere, And Jerry Suggs

!DATE:
10 July 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, July 10, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the efforts of three men, John Keating, Joe Sapere and Jerry Suggs. These three gentlemen are now embarked upon a bicycle ride across America, having begun June 8 in Newport Beach, CA with anticipated completion in Jamestown, VA on the 21st of July, the anniversary of the “Americans with Disabilities Act” (ADA). What is most extraordinary about this journey Mr. Speaker is that each of these gentlemen is an amputee.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 68:2
John Keating, age 40, is the son of a former U.S. Defense attache and is the father of three sons. Joe Sapere, age 61, is a retired Air Force Colonel and a recent amputee. Jerry Suggs, 68, is retired form our U.S. Navy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 68:3
The reason for this trip, Mr. Speaker, is to demonstrate that life does not end with amputation, but can include high-intensity activities such as bicycling and skydiving. These men are visiting rehab facilities along the way and giving encouragement to those who have felt constrained. One young lady they have met was a tennis player and had given up the sport when she lost a leg. They convinced her to take up the racquet again and start playing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 68:4
As a Physician and Congressman, I honor these gentlemen for their efforts and invite others to learn more about these activities on line at www.amputees-across-america.com.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Honoring Maj. Gen. Gerald F. Perryman

!DATE:
10 July 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, July 10, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Maj. Gen. Gerald F. Perryman, Jr. on the occasion of his retirement from his position as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. General Perryman entered the Air Force in 1970 through Texas A&M University’s ROTC program. During his distinguished career he commanded the Air Force’s Peacekeeper missile squadron during its transition from the Minuteman weapon system, and led the 91st Missile Group to win the 1994 Omaha Trophy as the best of U.S. Strategic Command’s Air Force and Navy ballistic missile units. The general has commanded a missile wing and space wing. He also commanded 14th Air Force and was Component Commander of U.S. Air Force space operations within U.S. Space Command. As Commander of the Aerospace Command and Control, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center, General Perryman was responsible for integrating command and control, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the Air Force to improve the ability of commanders to create desired effects in the battlespace. The general has served as a missile combat crew commander in the Minuteman and Peacekeeper weapons systems, and as a space warning crew commander.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 69:2
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend General Perryman on the occasion of his retirement from a distinguished military career.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!TITLE:
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act

!DATE:
July 16, 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:2
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:4
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:5
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:6
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:7
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 70:8
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee

!DATE:
July 17, 2002

!TITLE:
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:1
Rep. Paul: "Welcome Chairman Greenspan. I’ve listened carefully to your testimony but I get the sense I may be listening to the Chairman of the Board of Central Economic planning rather than the chairman of a board that has been entrusted with protecting the value of the dollar.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:2
"I have for quite a few years now expressed concern about the value of the dollar which I think we neglect here in the Congress, here in the committee and I do not think that the Federal Reserve has done a good job in protecting the value of the dollar. And it seems that maybe others are coming around to this viewpoint because I see that the head of the IMF this week, Mr. Koehler has expressed a concern and made a suggestion that all the central bankers of the world need to lay plans in the near future to possibly prop up the dollar. So others have this same concern.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:3
"You have in your testimony expressed concern about the greed factor which obviously is there. And you implied that this has come out from the excessive capitalization/excessive valuations, which may be true. But I believe where you have come up short is in failing to explain why we have financial bubbles. I think when you have fiat money and excessive credit you create financial bubbles and you also undermine the value of the dollar and now we are facing that consequence. We see the disintegration of some of these markets. At the same time we have potential real depreciation of the value of our dollar. And we have pursued rampant inflation of the money supply. Since you have been Chairman of the Federal Reserve we have literally created $4.7 trillion worth of new money in M-3. Even in this last year with this tremendous burst of inflation of the money supply has gone up since last January over $1 trillion. You can’t have anything but lower value of that unit of account if you keep printing and creating new money.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:4
"Now I would like to bring us back to sound money. And I would like to quote an eminent economist by the name of Alan Greenspan who gives me some credibility on what I am interested in. A time ago you said, “In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from the confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value without gold. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process that stands as a protector of property rights.’"


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:5
Congressman Paul then added the he strongly believed this statement by Greenspan taken from a 1966 article that was included in an article he had written titled, "Gold & Economic Freedom" was true. Congressman Paul continued,


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:6
"But gold has always had to be undermined if fiat money is to work and there has to be an illusion of trust for paper to work. And I think this has been happening for thousands of years. At one time the kings clipped coins. Then they debased the metals. Then we learned how to print money. Even as recently as the 1960’s for us to perpetuate a myth about our monetary system, we dumped 2/3 of our gold, or 500 million ounces of gold at $35 per ounce in order to try to convince people to trust the money. And even today, there is a fair amount of trading by central banks, the dumping of hundreds of tonnes of gold, loaning of gold for the sole purpose that this indicator of gold does not discredit the paper money and I think there is a definite concerted effort to do that.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:7
"My questions are two fold relating to gold. One, I have been trying to desperately to find out the total amount of gold either dumped and sold on to the markets by all the central banks of the world or loaned by the central banks of the world. And this is in hundreds and hundreds of tons. But those figures are not available to me. Maybe you can help me find this. I think it would be important to know since all central banks still deal with and hold gold whether they are dumping, or loaning or buying for that matter.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:8
"But along this line, I have a bill that would say that our government, our Treasury could not deal in gold and could not be involved in the gold market unless the Congress knows about it. Now that to me seems like such a reasonable approach and reasonable request. But they say they don’t use it (gold) so we don’t need the bill. But if they are not trading in gold, what would be the harm in the Congress knowing about handling and dealing about this asset, gold?"


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 71:9
Chairman Greenspan: "Well first of all, neither we nor the Treasury trade gold. And my impression is that were we to do so, we would announce it. It is certain the case that others do. There are data published monthly or quarterly which shows the reported gold holdings of central banks throughout the world, so you do know who holds what. The actual trading data, ah, I don’t think is available though the London gold exchange does show what its volume numbers are. And periodically, individual central banks do indicate when they are planning to sell gold. But they all report what they own. So it may well be the case that you can’t find specific transactions. I think what you can find is the net result of those transactions and they are published. But so far as the United States is concerned, we don’t do it."

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressman Ron Paul

!DATE:
July 23, 2002

!TITLE:
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
Member comment period on HR 5095


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:1
MR. PAUL: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement regarding the corporate tax bill recently marked up by this committee.  


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:2
I hope Congress understands the historical significance of this bill.  Once again, as when we created the ETI ("extraterritorial") tax regime in 2000, we are acting at the behest on an international body.  We are changing our domestic laws, and changing the way we tax domestic parent corporations on the activities of their subsidiaries operating wholly outside of the U.S., because an international body demands it.  The WTO appellate panel has spoken, and their will trumps Congress.  Yet we were assured in 1994 that our membership in the WTO would never diminish American sovereignty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:3
The Europeans argue, quite correctly, that we treat some foreign-source corporate earnings preferentially, i.e. we exempt from tax a portion of the earnings of foreign sales corporations (FSCs).  This is not, however, an argument for abolishing the FSC — it is an argument for adopting a territorial tax system like many of our European critics!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:4
Putting politics aside, however, the reality is that we must craft a bill that satisfies the WTO to avoid further trade sanctions.  While reform of our overall tax system remains an issue for another day, it is vital that Congress begin to consider comprehensive overhaul of U.S. international tax rules.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:5
The FSC, created by Congress in 1984 under IRC sections 921-927, provides needed relief from the subpart F anti-deferral rules for the foreign subsidiaries of our domestic corporations.   FSCs make it possible for U.S. corporations to better compete with companies incorporated in territorial-system nations — which is to say companies that generally pay no corporate tax at all on the foreign-source income of their subsidiaries.

I urge the committee to reconsider repealing the FSC, an entity utilized by several corporations in my district that employ thousands of people, including Marathon Oil, Dow Chemical, and British Petroleum.  Since competing legislation recently introduced in this committee seeks to encourage American manufacturing and exports, it is imperative that any manufacturing deduction (for "qualified production activities") include income derived from the production of finished energy products — refined gasoline, liquefied natural gas, etc.  


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:6
It may not be possible to design a replacement that will replicate the same benefits (of the FSC) to the same taxpayers and still satisfy the WTO.  On this point, I concur with Chairman Thomas.  The committee should  recognize that there will be winners and losers with any change to the existing rules.  However, I believe it is important to balance the needs of various affected industries and implement any proposed legislation in a manner that avoids disruption of current business plans and activities.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:7
Current international tax rules are grossly outdated.  The basic Subpart F rules were enacted in 1962.  These rules reflect the economic climate of that time.  In 1962, the United States was a net exporter of capital and enjoyed a trade surplus.  Imports and exports were only one-half of the percentage of GDP that they are today.  The world has changed.  Our tax laws need to change too.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:8
The impact of U.S. tax rules on the international competitiveness of U.S. multinationals is much more significant an issue than it was forty years ago. Today, foreign markets provide an increasing amount of the growth opportunities for U.S. businesses.  At the same time, competition from multinationals headquartered outside of the United States is becoming greater.  Of the world’s 20 largest corporations, the number headquartered in the United States has declined from 18 in 1960 to just 8 in 1996.  Around the world, 21,000 foreign affiliates of U.S. multinationals compete with about 260,000 foreign affiliates of foreign multinationals.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:9
If U.S. rules for taxing foreign source income are more burdensome than those of other countries, U.S. businesses will be less successful in global markets, with negative consequences for exports and jobs at home.  I think a fair comparison of U.S. international tax rules and those of other nations shows that American businesses are increasingly put at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:10
First, about half of OECD countries have a territorial tax system under which a company generally is not subject to tax on the active income earned by a foreign subsidiary.  By contrast, the United States taxes income of a U.S.-controlled foreign corporation either when repatriated or when earned in cases where income is subject to U.S. anti-deferral rules.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:11
Second, the scope of U.S. anti-deferral rules under subpart F is unusually broad compared to those of other countries.  While some countries tax passive income earned by controlled foreign subsidiaries, the United States stands out for taxing (as a deemed dividend) a wide range of active income under various subpart F provisions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:12
Third, the U.S. foreign tax credit, which is intended to prevent double taxation of foreign source income, has a number of deficiencies that increase complexity and prevent full double tax relief.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:13
Taken all together, you find that a U.S.-based business operating internationally frequently pays a greater share of its income in foreign and U.S. tax than does a competing multinational company headquartered outside of the United States. Yet Congress wonders why corporate inversions are at an all-time high!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:14
One indication of the impact of an overly burdensome and complex tax regime on the U.S. economy is in the area of corporate mergers and reorganizations.  U.S. international tax rules can play a key role in determining the location of a corporate headquarter, as we witnessed with the DaimlerChrysler merger.  In fact, recent studies have shown that between 73 and 86 percent of large cross-border transactions involving U.S. companies have resulted in the merged company being headquartered abroad.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 72:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to craft a final bill (or conference report) that satisfies the WTO without punishing those U.S. corporations that have relied on the FSC structure to maintain their international competitiveness.  I also urge the committee to use this debate as a springboard for wholesale reform of our international tax rules.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
July 23, 2002

!TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:2
It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had plenty. But they failed to analyze, communicate, and use the information to our advantage.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:3
The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:4
A clear understanding of private property and an owner’s responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:5
The solution now being proposed is a giant new federal department, and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:6
What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:7
Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:8
Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too important to offend the Saudis.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:9
Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:10
Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the republic will suffer another major setback.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:11
Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:12
A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:13
A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 73:14
If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, and it will cost a lot less.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Treasury And General Government Appropriations Act, 2003

!DATE:
23 July 2002

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 23, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake and Rangel amendments to the Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations Act. The argument that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba props up Fidel Castro’s regime is just not supported by fact. History has shown that allowing — even encouraging — American citizens to travel to and engage commercially in less-than-free societies ignites the spark of freedom and hastens democratic transformations. Unfortunately, special interests have driven some to argue even against demonstrated fact in pursuit of their political agenda.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 74:2
It is time to face reality on the policies of isolation and embargo: they have not worked in the past, they are not working in the present, and they will not work in the future. Can anyone claim that our policies of isolation and embargo have made life for the average Cuban citizen the slightest bit better? Conversely, is there any evidence that our policies of isolation and embargo have made life for Castro and his ruling clique one bit worse? The answer to both questions, of course, is no. So why continue to pursue a foreign policy that is producing the opposite effect of what is intended?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 74:3
While there is no evidence that sanctions and isolation work, there is plenty of evidence — real concrete evidence — that engagement and trade actually bring about democratic change. In the former Soviet-dominated world — particularly in Central Europe — it was American commercial and individual engagement that proved key to the demise of the dictatorships. It was Americans traveling to these lands with new ideas and a different attitude toward government that helped nurture the seeds of discontent among a population living under the yoke of tyranny. It was American commercial activity that brought in products that the closed and controlled economic systems would or could not produce, thus underscoring to the population the failure of planned economies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 74:4
With the system of one-party rule so obviously and undeniably proven unworkable and unsatisfactory in Central Europe, even those who had served the one-party state began to shift their views and work in opposition to that rule. Thus began the fall of the Soviet empire. Yet those who support sanctions and isolation still seek to deny history in their drive to pursue a policy that has not worked for forty years.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 74:5
Mr. Chairman, finally and importantly, I strongly oppose sanctions for the simple reason that they hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every time we shut our own farmers out of foreign markets, they are exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge potential for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these areas. We are one of the world’s largest agricultural producers — why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? Why would we want to do harm to our domestic producers by pursuing a policy that does not work? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors; the ones punished are our own producers. It is time to end restrictions on Cuba travel and trade.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
July 24, 2002

!TITLE:
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social-political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:5
For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states, "...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide..." The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating that we are drawing a "bright line" between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are "expendable," and which are not.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:6
The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are "expendable," leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter Singer of Princeton, who advocates the "right" of parents to choose infanticide, as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical extension of the ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain people are not "useful" or "convenient," they should be done away with.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:7
H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a "distinction" made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical "distinction," I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:8
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and should therefore be supported. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:9
I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: "...From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak- the unborn child- must go out to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for..."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 75:10
May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles the founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and compromise these principles.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
July 24, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on Expulsion of Congressman Jim Traficant



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. Speaker, many of Congressman Traficant’s actions are impossible to defend. Mr. Traficant likely engaged in unethical behavior. I hope all my colleagues would join me in condemning any member who abused his office by requiring staff to pay kick-backs to him and/or do personal work as a condition of employment. I also condemn in the strongest terms possible using one’s office to obtain personal favors from constituents, the people we are sent here to represent. Such behavior should never be tolerated.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:2
However, before expelling a member we must consider more than eccentric behavior and ethical standards. We must first consider whether Mr. Traficant’s received a fair trial and a fair ethics hearing. His constitutional right to a fair trial, and the right to be judged by those who elected him to office, are every bit as important.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:3
Many Americans believe that Congress routinely engages in ethically questionable and unconstitutional actions, actions which are far more injurious to the liberty and prosperity of the American people than the actions of Mr. Traficant. Some question the ability of Congress to judge the moral behavior of one individual when, to use just one example, we manage to give ourselves a pay raise without taking a direct vote.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:4
Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully to last week’s ethics hearing, I have serious concerns about whether Mr. Traficant received a fair trial. In particular, I am concerned whether the change of venue denied Mr. Traficant a meaningful opportunity to present his case to a jury of his peers. Usually a change of venue is appropriate in cases where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial. I am unaware of any other case where the venue was changed for the benefit of the state.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:5
However, the most disturbing accusations concern the possibility that Mr. Traficant was denied basic due process by not being allowed to present all of his witnesses at the trial. This failure raises serious questions whether Mr. Traficant had the opportunity to present an adequate defense. These questions are especially serious since one of the jurors from Mr. Traficant’s criminal trial told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that had he heard the testimony of Richard Detore at Mr. Traficant’s trial, he would have voted "not guilty."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:6
Mr. Speaker, I also question the timing of this resolution and the process by which this resolution is being brought to the floor. Mr. Traficant’s conviction is currently on appeal. Many Americans reasonably wonder whether the case, and the question of Mr. Traficant’s guilt, can be considered settled before the appeals process is completed. I fail to see the harm that would be done to this body if we waited until Mr. Traficant exhausts his right to appeal.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:7
Before voting to expel Mr. Traficant while his appeal is pending, my colleagues should consider the case of former Representative George Hansen. Like Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hansen was convicted in federal court, censured by Congress, and actually served time in federal prison. However, Mr. Hansen was acquitted on appeal- after his life, career, and reputation were destroyed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:8
If my colleagues feel it is important to condemn Mr. Traficant before the August recess, perhaps we should consider censure. Over the past twenty years, this body has censured, rather than expelled, members who have committed various ethical and even criminal violations, ranging from bribery to engaging in sexual activity with underage subordinates.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:9
I also am troubled that Mr. Traficant will have only 30 minutes to plead his case before the full House. Spending only an hour to debate this resolution, as though expelling a member of Congress is no more important than honoring Paul Ecke’s contributions to the Poinsettia industry, does this Congress a disservice.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 76:10
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because of my concerns over the fairness of Mr. Traficant’s trial, I believe it is inappropriate to consider this matter until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Commemorate A Unique And Magnificent Group Of Aviators

!DATE:
25 July 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 25, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to commemorate a unique and magnificent group of old aviators who have received very little publicity in the civilian sector. They will celebrate their 90th and 60th anniversaries in conjunction with the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) “Wings Over Houston” Air Show from October 23–26, 2002, in Houston, Texas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:2
The first Enlisted Pilot, Vernon L. Burge, earned his wings in the old Signal Corps in 1912. Prior to World War 11, 282 enlisted pilots served in the Signal Corps, then in the Army Air Service and later in the Army Air Corps as rated pilots. Many flew the Air Mail during the early 1930s of the Roosevelt Administration.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:3
With the approach of WWII, aircraft manufacturers were producing aircraft faster than the Air Corps could fill with pilots. To qualify for Flight Training, a cadet was required to have two years of college. To fill this shortage of pilots, Congress enacted legislation in 1941 authorizing enlisted men to participate in aerial flight.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:4
To qualify for Pilot Training, the enlisted men had to meet several stringent requirements. They had to be enlisted in the regular Army, not drafted, possess a high-school diploma, pass a rigid physical exam, and sign a contract with the Army avowing that upon completion of Flight Training, they would continue serving in the Army Air Corps as Staff Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Technical Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Master Sergeants for three years, and end the contract as Warrant Officer Pilots.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:5
The Enlisted Pilots (aviation students) attended the same ground schools, same flying schools, had the same flight instructors, same training airplanes, and successfully completed the same curriculum as the Aviation Cadets.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:6
Almost 2,500 enlisted men graduated as Enlisted Pilots from Ellington, Kelly, Luke, Mather, Columbus, Dothan, Lubbock, Moody, Roswell, Spencer, Turner, Victorville, Williams, Craig and Stockton Air Bases in Classes 42– C through 42–J, the last class of Enlisted Pilots.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:7
Upon graduation, and ordered to participate in Aerial Flight by General “Hap” Arnold, Chief of the Army Air Corps, these pilots flew Douglas A–20s, Curtis P–36s and P–40s, Lockheed P–38s, North American P–64s, Douglas C– 47s, C–48s, C–49s, C–53s. They flew many of these aircraft in combat as Staff Sergeant Pilots. Later, as officers, they flew all of the aircraft in the Air Force inventory during and after WWII.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:8
The Flight Training of Aviation Students Program was discontinued in November 1942, with enlisted men graduating as Flight Officers in following classes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:9
Charles “Chuck” Yeager, the first pilot to exceed the speed of sound, completed his flight training as an enlisted man but graduated as a Flight Officer in December 1942. Bob Hoover, the world renowned military and civilian acrobatic pilot was an Enlisted Pilot. Walter H. Beech served as an Enlisted Pilot in 1919 and later founded the Beech Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kansas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:10
The Air Force honors the third Enlisted Pilot, William C. Ocker, for pioneering instrument flying by naming the Instrument Flight Center at Randolph AFB in his memory.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:11
Captain Claire Chennault organized a flight demonstration team at Maxwell Air Field in 1932, called the “Men on the Flying Trapeze” (the forerunner of the Thunderbirds), which at one time included two Enlisted Pilots, Sergeant William C. McDonald and Sergeant John H. Williamson. Staff Sergeant Ray Clinton flew solo stunt and backup for the team.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:12
The Enlisted Pilots’ accomplishments are many and their legend is a long one of dedication and patriotism. Seventeen became Fighter Pilot Aces and thirteen became General Officers. They pioneered many air routes throughout the world. After release from active duty, they became airline pilots, airline union heads, corporate executives, bank presidents, teachers, doctors, manufacturers of racing cars, corporate aviation department heads, and much, much more.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:13
Of the almost 3,000 American Enlisted Pilots from 1912 through 1942, approximately 600 remain. They are a terminal organization — most of them are in their early eighties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 77:14
According to retired USAF General Edwin F. Wenglar, chairman of the Grand Muster Reunion, 75 to 100 of these grand Airmen will be able to attend their reunion, which could very well be the last gathering of the finest and most magnificent aviators in the annals of aviation history.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
25 July 2002

!DATE:
Monetary Practices

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 25, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as the attached article (“A Classic Hayekian Hangover”) by economists Roger Garrison and Gene Callahan makes clear, much of the cause for our current economic uneasiness is to be found in the monetary expansion over most of the past decade. In short, expansion of the money supply as made possible by the policy of fiat currency, leads directly and inexorably to the kind of problems we have seen in the financial markets of late. Moreover, if we do not make the necessary policy changes, we will eventually see similar problems throughout the entire economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:2
As the authors point out, our ability to understand the linkage between inflated money supplies and subsequent economic downturns is owing to the ground breaking work of the legendary economists of the Austrian school. This Austrian Business Cycle (or “ABC”) theory has long explained the inevitable downside that attends to a busting of the artificial bubble created by inflationary fiat monetary practices.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:3
In the current instance, the fact that there has been nearly a decade of significant increases in the seasonally adjusted money supply, as measured by MZM (as shown by the chart included with the article), serves as a direct explanation for the over capitalization and excess confidence which we have seen recently leaving financial markets. In short, as this article shows, the Austrian theory alone understands the causes for what has been termed “irrational exuberance” in the financial markets.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:4
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the authors of this fine article as well as to call it to the attention of my colleagues in hopes that we will not merely understand its implications but also that we find the courage to change monetary policy so that we will not see a repeat performance of this year’s market volatility.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:5
A CLASSIC HAYEKIAN HANGOVER
(By Roger Garrison and Gene Callahan)
Are investment booms followed by busts like drinking binges are followed by hangovers? Dubbing the idea “The Hangover Theory” (Slate, 12/3/98), Paul Krugman has attempted to denigrate the business-cycle theory introduced early last century by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and developed most notably by Nobelist F. A. Hayek.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:6
Yet, proponents of the Austrian theory have themselves embraced this apt metaphor. And if investment is the intoxicant, then the interest rate is the minimum drinking age. Set the interest rate too low, and there is bound to be trouble ahead.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:7
The metaphorical drinking age is set by — and periodically changed by — the Federal Reserve. In our Fed-centric mixed economy, the understanding that “the Fed sets interest rates” has become widely accepted as a simple institutional fact. But unlike an actual drinking age, which has an inherent degree of arbitrariness about it, the interest rate cannot simply be “set” by some extramarket authority. With market forces in play, it has a life of its own.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:8
The interest rate is a price. It’s the price that brings into balance our eagerness to consume now and our willingness to save and invest for the future. The more we save, the lower the market rate. Our increased saving makes more investment possible; the lower rate makes investments more future oriented. In this way, the market balances current consumption and economic growth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:9
Price fixing foils the market. Government mandated ceilings on apartment rental rates, for instance, create housing shortages, as is well known by anyone who has gone apartment hunting in New York City. Similarly, a legislated interest-rate ceiling would cause a credit shortage: The volume of investment funds demanded would exceed people’s actual willingness to save.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:10
But the Fed can do more than simply impose a ceiling on credit markets. Setting the interest rate below where the market would have it is accomplished not by decree but by increasing the money supply, temporarily masking the discrepancy between supply and demand. This papering over of the credit shortage hides a problem that would otherwise be obvious, allowing it to fester beneath a binge of investment spending.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:11
An artificially low rate of interest, then, sets the economy off on an unsustainable growth path. During the boom, investment spending is excessively long-term and overly optimistic. Further, high levels of consumer spending draw real resources away from the investment sector, increasing the gap between the resources actually available and the resources needed to see the long-term and speculative investments through to completion.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:12
Save more, and we get a market process that plays itself out as economic growth. Pump new money through credit markets, and we get a market process of a very different kind: It doesn’t play itself out; it does itself in. The investment binge is followed by a hangover. This is the Austrian theory in a nutshell. (Ironically, it is the theory that Alan Greenspan presented forty years ago when he lectured for the Nathaniel Branden Institute.) We believe that there is strong evidence that the United States is now in the hangover phase of a classic Mises-Hayek business cycle.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:13
In recent years money-supply figures have become clouded by institutional and technological change. But in our view, a tale-telling pattern is traced out by the MZM data reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. ZM standing for “zero maturity,” this monetary aggregate is a better indicator of credit conditions than are the more narrowly defined M’s.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:14
After increasing at a rate of less than 2.5% during the first three years of the Clinton administration, MZM increased over the next three years of the Clinton administration, MZM increased over the next three years (1996–1998) at an annualized rate of over 10%, rising during the last half of 1998 at a binge rate of almost 15%.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:15
Sean Corrigan, a principal in Capital Insight, a UK-based financial consultancy, has recently detailed the consequences of the expansion that came in “. . . autumn 1998, when the world economy, still racked by the problems of the Asian credit bust over the preceding year, then had to cope with the Russian default and the implosion of the mighty Long-Term Capital Management.” Corrigan goes on: “Over the next eighteen months, the Fed added $55 billion to its portfolio of Treasuries and swelled repos held from $6.5 billion to $22 billion . . . [T]his translated into a combined money market mutual fund and commercial bank asset increase of $870 billion to the market peak, of $1.2 trillion to the industrial production peak, and of $1.8 trillion to date — twice the level of real GDP added in the same interval” (http://www.mises.org/ fullarticle.asp?control=754).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:16
The party was in full swing, and the Fed kept the good times rolling by cutting the fed funds rate a whole basis point between June 1998 and January 1999. The rate on 30- year Treasuries dropped from a high of over 7% to a low of 5%. Stock markets soared. The NASDAQ composite went from just over 1000 to over 5000 during the period, rising over 80% in 1999 alone. With abundant credit being freely served to Internet start-ups, hordes of corporate managers, who had seemed married to their stodgy blue-chip companies, suddenly were romancing some sexy dot-com that had just joined the party.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:17
Meanwhile consumer spending stayed strong — with very low (sometimes negative) savings rates. Growth was not being fueled by real investment, which would require forgoing current consumption to save for the future, but by the monetary printing press.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:18
As so often happens at bacchanalia, when the party entered the wee hours, it became apparent that too many guys had planned on taking the same girl home. There were too few resources available for all of their plans to succeed. The most crucial — and most general — unavailable factor was a continuing flow of investment funds. There also turned out to be shortages of programmers, network engineers, technical managers, and other factors of production. The rising prices of these factors exacerbated the ill effects of the shortage of funds.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:19
The business plans for many of the startups involved negative cash flows for the first 10 or 15 years, while they “built market share.” To keep the atmosphere festive, they needed the host to keep filling the punch bowl. But fears of inflation led to Federal Reserve tightening in late 1999, which helped bring MZM growth back into the single digits (8.5% for the 1999–2000 period). As the punch bowl emptied, the hangover — and the dot-com bloodbath — began. According to research from Webmergers.com, at least 582 Internet companies closed their doors between May 2000 and July of this year. The plunge in share price of many of those still alive has been gut wrenching. The NASDAQ retraced two years of gains in a little over a year.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:20
During the first half of 2001, the Fed demonstrated — with its half-dozen interest-rate cuts and a near-desperate MZM growth of over 23% — that you can’t recreate euphoria in the midst of a hangover.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:21
It all adds up to the Austrian theory. As a final twist to our story, we note that Krugman, who before could only mock the Austrians, has recently given us an Austrian account of our macroeconomic ills. In his “Delusions of Prosperity” (New York Times, 8/14/01), Krugman explains how our current difficulties go beyond those of a simple financial panic:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:22
“We are not in the midst of a financial panic, and recovery isn’t simply a matter of restoring confidence. Indeed, excessive confidence [fostered by unduly low interest rates maintained by rapid monetary growth? — RG & GC] may be part of the problem. Instead of being the victims of self-fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism. The driving force behind the current slowdown is a plunge in business investment. It now seems clear that over the last few years businesses spent too much on equipment and software and that they will be cautious about further spending until their excess capacity has been worked off. And the Fed cannot do much to change their minds, since equipment spending [at least when such spending has already proved to be excessive — RG & GC] is not particularly sensitive to interest rates.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 78:23
With Krugman on the verge of rediscovering the policy-induced self-reversing process that we call the Austrian theory of the business cycle, we confidently claim that current macroeconomic conditions are best described as a classic Hayekian hangover. The Austrian theory, of course, gives us no policy prescription for converting this ongoing hangover into renewed euphoria. But it does provide us with the best guide for avoiding future ones.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002

!DATE:
25 July 2002

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 25, 2002



!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.


!CITE:
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.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Department of Homeland Security

!DATE:
26 July 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the move to create a federal Department of Homeland Security was initiated in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent revelations regarding bureaucratic bungling and ineptness related to those attacks. Leaving aside other policy initiatives that may be more successful in reducing the threat of future terror attacks, I believe the President was wellintentioned in suggesting that a streamlining of functions might be helpful.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:2
Mr. Speaker, as many commentators have pointed out, the creation of this new department represents the largest reorganization of federal agencies since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unfortunately, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed department of defense in 1945 — two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created the new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedeviled the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99–433) was passed to deal with problems stemming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:3
This current proposed legislation suggest that merging 22 government agencies and departments — compromising nearly 200,000 federal employees — into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches — does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term? — is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn’t it a bit ironic that in the name of “homeland security” we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:4
Mr. Speaker, I come from a Coastal District in Texas. The Coast Guard and its mission are important to us. The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Coast Guard has expressed strong reservations about the plan to move the Coast Guard into the new department. Recently my district was hit by the flooding in Texas, and we relied upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to again provide certain services. Additionally, as a district close to our border, much of the casework performed in my district offices relates to requests made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:5
There has beem a difference of opinion between committees of jurisdiction and the administration in regard to all these functions. In fact, the President’s proposal was amended in no fewer than a half dozen of the dozen committees to which it was originally referred.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:6
My coastal district also relies heavily on shipping. Our ports are essential for international trade and commerce. Last year, over one million tons of goods was moved through just one of the Ports in my district! However, questions remain about how the mission of the Customs Service will be changed by this new department. These are significant issues to my constituents, and may well affect their very livelihoods. For me to vote for this bill would amount to giving my personal assurance that the creation of this new department will not adversely impact the fashion in which the Coast Guard and Customs Service provide the services which my constituents have come to rely upon. Based on the expedited process we have followed with this legislation, I do not believe I can give such as assurance.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:7
We have also received a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate suggesting that it will cost no less than $3 billion just to implement this new department. That is $3 billion dollars that could be spent to capture those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or to provide tax-relief to the families of the victims of that attack. It is three billion dollars that could perhaps be better spent protecting against future attacks, or even simply to meet the fiscal needs of our government. Since those attacks this Congress has gone on a massive spending spree. Spending three billion additional dollars now, simply to rearrange offices and command structures, is not a wise move. In fact, Congress is actually jeopardizing the security of millions of Americans by raiding the social security trust fund to rearrange deck chairs and give big spenders yet another department on which to lavish porkbarrel spending. The way the costs of this department have skyrocketed before the Department is even open for business leads me to fear that this will become yet another justification for Congress to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance pork-barrel spending. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many questions remain regarding the ultimate effect of these structural changes. Moreover, this legislation will give the Executive Branch the authority to spend money appropriated by Congress in ways Congress has not authorized. This clearly erodes Constitutionally- mandated Congressional prerogatives relative to control of federal spending.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:8
Recently the House passed a bill allowing for the arming of pilots. This was necessary because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) simply ignored legislation we had passed previously. TSA is, of course, a key component of this new department. Do we really want to grant authority over appropriations to a Department containing an agency that has so brazenly ignored the will of Congress as recently as has the TSA? In fact, there has been a constant refusal of the bureaucracy to recognize that one of the best ways to enhance security is to legalize the second amendment and allow private property owners to defend their property. Instead, the security services are federalized.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:9
The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that get to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:10
Mr. Speaker, government reorganizations, though generally seen as benign, can have a deleterious affect not just on the functioning of government but on our safety and liberty as well. The concentration and centralization of authority that may result from today’s efforts should give us all reason for pause. But the current process does not allow for pause. Indeed, it militates toward rushing decisions without regard to consequence. Furthermore, this particular reorganization, in an attempt to provide broad leeway for the new department, undermines our Congressional oversight function. Abrogating our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities so hastily now also means that future administrations will find it much easier to abuse the powers of this new department to violate constitutional liberties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:11
Perhaps a streamlined, reconfigured federal government with a more clearly defined and limited mission focused on protecting citizens and their freedoms could result from this reorganization, but right now it seems far more likely that the opposite will occur. That is why I must oppose creation of this new department.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 80:12
Until we deal with the substance of the problem — serious issues of American foreign policy about which I have spoken out for years, and important concerns with our immigration policy in light of the current environment — attempts such as we undertake today at improved homeland security will amount to, more or less, rearranging deck chairs — or perhaps more accurately office chairs in various bureaucracies. Until we are prepared to have serious and frank discussions of policy this body will not improve the security of American citizens and their property. I stand ready to have that debate, but unfortunately this bill does nothing to begin the debate and nothing substantive to protect us. At best it will provide an illusion of security, and at worst these unanswered questions will be resolved by the realization that entities such as the Customs Service, Coast Guard and INS will be less effective, less efficient, more intrusive and mired in more bureaucratic red tape. Therefore, we should not pass this bill today.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
September 4, 2002

!TITLE:
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:2
Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:3
We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:4
For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:5
Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:6
We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq’s neighbors oppose this attack, and our European allies object as well.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:7
If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:8
Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said: "No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:9
We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:10
First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:11
There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:12
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:13
This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing pro-war interests arguing for war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:14
There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:15
There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:16
There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:17
There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 81:18
Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Avoid War With Iraq

!DATE:
4 September 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to start my 5 minutes with a quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said, “No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours.” These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:2
We love and we value peace and we know its blessings from experience.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:3
We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles off to a land to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. I believe it would be a serious mistake for various reasons.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:4
First, it is a practical reason. There is no practical defense for this. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and actually when we go into Iraq, as we may well do, we will weaken our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our defense by initiating this war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:5
Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about and what might come. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war or six years or even longer. It could be very impractical by going to war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:6
There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to just listen to the generals and the other military experts that are now advising us there is not a good reason to go to war, possibly even start World War III some have suggested. They claim our troops have been spread too thinly around the world, and it is not a good military matter to go into war today.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:7
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war and a clear goal of victory, a haphazard way of slipping into war by Executive Order or, heaven forbid, getting permission from the United Nations makes it so that it is almost inevitable that true victory will not come.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:8
So we should look at this in a very constitutional fashion. We in the Congress should assume our responsibility because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:9
This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be hearings and discussion on this matter. I am certainly arguing the case that we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, and we heard only one side of why we must do this, but if we have true hearings, we best have a debate and evidence on both sides of this matter rather than just getting one side up and saying why we must do this.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:10
Actually there are even good political reasons for not going into this battle. War is not popular. It may be popular for the short run when there seems to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating over the victory, but war is not popular. People get killed and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:11
There are economic reasons that we must be careful for. We can make serious economic mistakes. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure that we do not know what the outcome will be and how long this will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What is going to happen to the deficit? All kinds of economic ramification. So we better not make the mistake of going into something that really we have no business getting into.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:12
There is a diplomatic reason for not going. There could be serious diplomatic mistakes made. All the Arab nations nearby and adjacent to Iraq object to it and do not endorse what we plan and insist that we might be doing, and none of the European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we are way off on doing this.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 82:13
I hope we take a second thought and be very cautious in what we do.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Price Of War

!DATE:
5 September 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early Presidents when he stated, ‘‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, which is one of the essential principles of our government.’’


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:2
The question is, whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored? We find the 20th century was wracked with war; peace was turned asunder and our liberties steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through U.N. resolutions or a Presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of the Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:3
Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded, not counting the many thousands claimed to have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clearcut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:4
If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:5
The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government; yet, they may well be a major factor in this hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate or banking influence over the foreign policy that replaced that of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:6
There is little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict noninterventionism to that of sole superpower with the assumption that we were destined to be the world’s policeman.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:7
By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over 100 years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflict. Instead, we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the Earth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:8
As the 21st century begins, there is not a country in the world that does not depend upon the U.S. for protections or fears her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance with great sacrifice financially and freedom-wise the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those others who did not cooperate.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:9
The question, though, remains, has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem considering the benefits we receive from maintaining the American empire, but has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:10
What about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America and the world in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:11
The transition from nonintervention to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum which was steadily filled by a U.S. presence around the world. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:12
Throughout most of the 20th century it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default, but does that justify its being in our best interests?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:13
Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved and the new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope does exist.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:14
In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored. A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we do not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose with unintended consequences resulting.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:15
The result then is that the action taken turns out to be actually detrimental to our national security interest; yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role and, if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:16
Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Resisting this temptation to power rarely has been achieved. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great Nation advised?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:17
Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it is our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:18
Competing with a power like the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force. The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by our early Presidents and permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world’s commercial interests with a special emphasis on oil.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:19
Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created State of Israel in 1947 and to securing control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel’s needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than half a century. In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequence occurred. This generated the Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists and caused greater regional instability than we anticipated.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:20
Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al- Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:21
Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it is becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly towards us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9–11 terrorists are Saudis.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:22
The Persian Gulf War fought, without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks like that 9–11 may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical guerrillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:23
In the 1980s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has come back to haunt us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:24
Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are evident to everyone.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:25
Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton’s bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured the Muslim people of the Middle Eastern countries of a U.S. balanced policy. The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions, resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security and has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting the fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives and demonstrating their hatred toward us.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:26
Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians do not even have an army, and most have to live in refugee camps, one should understand at least why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:27
There is no end in site. Since 9–11, our involvement in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries whose leaders depend on us to keep them in power to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes. Considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein, it is more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we are promoting war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:28
This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We have been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now the debate ranges over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:29
If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:30
Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept U.N. inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the real reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If it is merely to remove dictators around the world, this is the beginning of an endless task.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:31
In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade and neutrality to that of world policemen, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations such as the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it does not, we should ignore it for our own interest’s sake.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:32
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:33
We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if that seems to be what we are able to do now. The unilateralist approach of domination over the world’s leaders, and arbitrary ignoring of certain mandates, something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power, serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interest when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:34
Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility. The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended consequences not foreseen and become the target of the terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:35
Long-term foreign interventionism does not serve our interest. Tinkering on the edges with current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policemen, maintaining an American world empire while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. U.S. unilateralism is a far cry from the nonintervention that the Founders advised.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:36
The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commanderin- Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:37
A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade and maximum travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet today that is about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:38
Avoiding entangling alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is crucial, no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances we should avoid include the complex alliances in the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to the nonintervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:39
Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we are in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example, not force and intimidation, just as it is in trying to improve the personal behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:40
Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberties should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:41
While foreign visitors should be welcome, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution and not automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the purpose of giving birth.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:42
A successful and prosperous society comes from such a policy and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation are impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions leading to war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:43
The basic moral principle underpinning a noninterventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on nonviolence and friendship unless attacked, with determination for self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by the special interests that have an axe to grind or benefits to gain by controlling other foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and of no security interest provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risk financially and militarily.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:44
Our troops would be brought home under such conditions, systematically and soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure of Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There is no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became noninterventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a State function.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:45
All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows this money rarely helps the poor but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There is no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign aid expenditures, yet it is all done in the name of humanitarian causes.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:46
A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample notice, and then we would promptly leave the international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned when writing the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:47
The principle of mark and reprisal would be revived, and specific problems, such as terrorist threats, would be dealt with on a contract basis, incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of a conflict into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there is less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military weapons industries.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:48
The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:49
If we followed a constitutional policy of nonintervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests of our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and to protect their profits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:50
A noninterventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today’s foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. Yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:51
A noninterventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks upon us. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence- gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one’s property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:52
There are many reasons why a policy for peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change government in foreign lands just because we do not approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument. But rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:53
The practical argument against it because of its record of failure should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we have been doing for the past many decades.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:54
We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:55
Nonintervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:56
Countries like Switzerland and Sweden, who promote neutrality and nonintervention, have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Nonintervention consumes a lot less of the Nation’s wealth. With less wars, the higher the standard of living for all citizens. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:57
Wisdom, morality and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policymakers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years by the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:58
I am convinced, though, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourages planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:59
The Soviet system, armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire worldwide, collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily but for financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it and the resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its authoritarian rule.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:60
Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A nonviolent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:61
This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing ever so tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same from China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in their region of the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:62
The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of ‘‘peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.’’ Our modern-day war hawks represent neither this American principle nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 83:63
We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn

!DATE:
5 September 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 85

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
September 10, 2002

!TITLE:
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 85:1
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.




    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:2
    1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:3
    2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat ?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:4
    3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:5
    4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:6
    5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:7
    6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:8
    7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:9
    8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:10
    9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:11
    10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:12
    11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:13
    12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world’s worst suspicions about the US, and isn’t this what bin Laden wanted?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:14
    13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:15
    14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:16
    15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:17
    16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:18
    17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:19
    18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:20
    19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:21
    20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:22
    21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:23
    22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:24
    23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:25
    24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:26
    25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:27
    26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:28
    27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:29
    28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:30
    29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:31
    30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:32
    31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:33
    32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:34
    33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:35
    34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?


    !CITE:
    2002 Ron Paul 85:36
    35. Why don’t those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?



2002 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Abolishing The Federal Reserve

!DATE:
10 September 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 10, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the RECORD.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:2
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:3
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:4
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:5
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:6
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode Americans’ living standard via an inflationary monetary policy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:9
WHY GOLD?
(By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.)
As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:10
Why wasn’t it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:11
These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:12
Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It’s been three decades since the dollar’s tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It’s just another asset the government keeps to itself.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:13
The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:14
The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:15
Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don’t cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:16
There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it’s been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:17
There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that’s what the markets chose.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:18
Why isn’t gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can’t rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:19
A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases. In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:20
“An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:21
He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government’s ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:22
Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we’ve seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:23
Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don’t have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:24
In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:25
Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:26
How much easier matters were when we didn’t have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:27
We don’t have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:28
Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 86:29
What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
September 18, 2002

!TITLE:
A Political Mistake



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and constitutional approach to our foreign policy.  This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all respects to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early Presidents. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:2
Interventionism, internationalism, inflationism, protectionism, jingoism, and bellicosity are much more popular in our nation’s capital than a policy of restraint. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:3
I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those tempted to dissent. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:4
But the tragic and most irresponsible excuse for the war rhetoric is now emerging in the political discourse. We now hear rumblings that the vote is all about politics, the November elections, and the control of the U.S. Congress, that is, the main concern is political power.  Can one imagine delaying the declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor for political reasons? Or can one imagine forcing a vote on the issue of war before an election for political gain? Can anyone believe there are those who would foment war rhetoric for political gain at the expense of those who are called to fight and might even die if the war does not go as planned? 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not want to believe it is possible, but rumors are rampant that looking weak on the war issue is considered to be unpatriotic and a risky political position to take before the November elections. Taking pleasure in the fact that this might place many politicians in a difficult position is a sobering thought indeed. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:6
There is a bit of irony over all of this political posturing on a vote to condone a war of aggression and force some Members into a tough vote. Guess what, contrary to conventional wisdom, war is never politically beneficial to the politicians who promote it.  Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were reelected by promising to stay out of war. Remember, the party in power during the Korean War was routed in 1952 by a general who promised to stop the bloodshed. Vietnam, which started with overwhelming support and hype and jingoistic fervor, ended President Johnson’s political career in disgrace and humiliation. The most significant plight on the short term of President Kennedy was his effort at regime change in Cuba and the fate he met at the Bay of Pigs. Even Persian Gulf War I, thought at the time to be a tremendous victory, with its aftermath still lingering, did not serve President Bush, Sr.’s reelection efforts in 1992. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:7
War is not politically beneficial for two reasons: innocent people die, and the economy is always damaged. These two things, after the dust settles from the hype and the propaganda, always make the people unhappy. The euphoria associated with the dreams of grandiose and painless victories is replaced by the stark reality of death, destruction, and economic pain. Instead of euphoria, we end up with heartache as we did after the Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:8
Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country. 


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 87:9
Mr. Speaker, peace is always superior to war; it is also a political winner.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Rent-To-Own Contracts

!DATE:
18 september 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement bill, rewriters every rent-to-own contract in the nation to conform to the dictates of federal politicians and bureaucrats. This bill thus represents another usurpation by Congress of powers reserved by the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution to the states and the people.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:2
Rent-to-own transactions provide many lowincome individuals an affordable means of obtaining durable goods, such as furniture, appliances and computers. Rent-to-own also provides a way of obtaining luxury items for a short time. For example, someone who cannot afford a big screen TV can use a rent-to-own contract to obtain such a TV to watch the Super Bowl.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:3
Proponents of H.R. 1701 admit the benefits of rent-to-own but fret that rent-to-own transactions are regulated by the states, not the federal government. Proponents of this legislation claim that state regulations are inadequate, thus making federal regulations necessary. My well-intentioned colleagues ignore the fact that Congress has no legitimate authority to judge whether or not state regulations are adequate. This is because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate this type of transaction. Thus, whether or not state regulations are adequate is simply not for Congress to judge.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:4
Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states’ rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:5
In addition to exceeding Congress’s constitutional authority, H.R. 1701, like all federal regulatory schemes, could backfire and harm the very people it was intended to help. This is because any regulation inevitably raises the cost of doing business. These higher costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of either higher prices or fewer choices. The result of this is that marginal customers are priced out of the market. These consumers may prefer to sign contracts that do not meet federal standards as opposed to not having access to any rent-to-own contracts, but the Congress will deny them that option. According to the proponents of H.R. 1701, if people cannot obtain desired goods and services under terms satisfactory to the government, they are better off being denied those goods and services. Mr. Chairman, this type of “government knows best” legislation represents the worst type of paternalism and is totally inappropriate for a free society.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 88:6
In conclusion, H.R. 1701 exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority by regulating areas constitutionally left to the states. It also raises the cost of forming rent-to-own contracts and thus will deny those contracts to consumers who desire them. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this paternalistic and unconstitutional bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
September 24, 2002


!TITLE:
Can We Afford this War?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, a casual analysis of the world economy shows it rapidly deteriorating into recession, with a possible depression on the horizon. Unemployment is sharply rising with price inflation rampant, despite official government inflationary reports. The world’s stock markets continue to collapse, even after trillions of dollars in losses have been recorded in the past 2 years. These losses already have set historic records.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:2
With government revenues shrinking at all levels, we find deficits exploding. Our national debt is currently rising at a $450 billion per year. Confidence in corporate America has shrunk to levels usually reserved for governments alone.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:3
Government spending in all areas is skyrocketing, much of it out of the control of the politicians, who show little concern. Yet we are expected to believe our government leaders who say that we are experiencing a recovery and that a return to grand prosperity is just around the corner. The absence of capital formation, savings, and corporate profits are totally ignored.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:4
Evidence abounds that our $350 billion DOD budget and the $40 billion spent on intelligence gathering and our immigration policies have failed miserably in protecting our homeland. In spite of the rhetoric and new legislation attacking our civil liberties, we are as vulnerable to outside attack as before.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:5
Our military is drastically smaller than a decade ago, and we are spread around the world and involved in world conflicts more than we have ever been before.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:6
We have run a huge current account deficit for 15 years and massively expanded our money supply. No one should be surprised that the dollar is weakening and the commodity, natural resources, and precious metal prices are rising.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:7
Oil prices are over $31 a barrel, and predictions are that they can easily go up another $15 to $20 if international tensions grow.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:8
But the only talk here in the nation’s capitol is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who prefer negotiations, diplomacy and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of any circumstance.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:9
Eighty percent of the American people now report that they believe that a war with Iraq will increase the chances of our suffering from a new terrorist attack. If this is true, we become less secure with an attack on Iraq, since little has been done to correct the deficiencies in the intelligence gathering agencies and our immigration policies.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:10
No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them. Saddam Hussein is now weaker than ever.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:11
Reports are now appearing that we are negotiating with allies to share in the oil bounty once Iraq is occupied in order to get support for our invasion from various countries around the world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:12
Our national debt is over $6 trillion and is increasing by nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Since Social Security funds are all placed in the general revenues and spent and all funds are fungible, honest accounting, of which there has been a shortage lately, dictates that a $200 billion war must jeopardize Social Security funding. This is something the American people deserve to know.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:13
Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:14
Rest assured, a $200 billion hit on the economy will have economic consequences, and the elderly retirees on fixed incomes, and especially Social Security beneficiaries, will suffer the greatest burden of policy, reflecting a belief that our country is so rich that it can afford both guns and butter. Remember, we have tried that before.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:15
The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world’s policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 89:16
A nation suffering from recession can ill afford a foreign policy that encourages unnecessary military action that will run up huge deficits. Congress ought to pause a moment, and carefully contemplate the consequences of the decisions we are about to make in the coming days.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 90

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
September 26, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant woman unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:2
However this bill raises several question of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of HR 4600 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry, Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, but will certainly benefit the patients and physicians which both sides in this debate claim to represent.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:4
HR 4600 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liability to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by imposing uniform laws on the states, Congress is preventing the states from creating innovative solutions to the malpractice problems.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:5
The current governor of my own state of Texas has introduced a far reaching medical litigation reform plan that the Texas state legislature will consider in January. However, if HR 4600 becomes law, Texans will be deprived of the opportunity to address the malpractice crisis in the way that meets their needs. Ironically, HR 4600 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in Texas by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:6
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:7
Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. HR 4600 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:8
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:9
I am working on legislation to provide tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:10
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their recent losses in the stock market.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 90:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of HR 4600 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 91

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
“Say ‘No’ To UNESCO” Act

!DATE:
26 September 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 26, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the “Say ‘No’ to UNESCO” act. This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:2
Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in that UNESCO, citing egregious financial mis-management, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO’s general anti-freedom policies. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America’s interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget for that privilege.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:3
Those calling for the United States to rejoin UNESCO claim that the organization has undertaken fundamental reforms and therefore the United States should re-join. It is strange that in the 18 years since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about the beginnings of reform in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly two decades of no change in UNESCO’s way of mis-managing itself things have changed so much in just two years? Is it worth spending $60 million dollars per year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:4
Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been “reforming” its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO’s ongoing highly questionable activities:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:5
UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a UN-based school curriculum for American schools.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:6
UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:7
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:8
UNESCO effectively bypasses Congressional authority to manage federal lands, by establishing management policies without Congressional consultation of approval.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 91:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed United States membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring the “Say ‘No’ to UNESCO” act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 92

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Internet Gambling

!DATE:
1 October 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 92:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 92:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 556 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 92:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 93

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!TITLE:
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act

!DATE:
October 1, 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs and/or cable networks. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable "marketplace" is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate "exclusive dealings" contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or "instilling competition" via "central planning" seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:4
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:5
This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal "must carry" mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming desired by their customers. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 93:6
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
October 3, 2002

!TITLE:
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:1
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:2
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:3
The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:4
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:5
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from- rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:6
Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:7
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:8
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:9
In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:10
What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:11
A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:12
History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:13
The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur- what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:14
It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:15
An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:16
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 94:17
Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Fairness

!DATE:
8 October 2002


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 95:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman’s statement because it makes a very good point about fairness.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 95:3
Prior to the writing of the rule, I did make some requests about getting some time because as a Republican, I have strong constitutional reservations about what we are doing, and I think they are worthwhile hearing. That was turned down. It was not written into the rule; and of course the amendment that I offered that may have offered an opportunity for me to make these constitutional points, that also was declined. But I have been informed today that I would be allowed 3 minutes to make the case for the Constitution.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 95:4
I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing this up, and I hope our leadership will reconsider and allow Republicans on this side to have a fair share of the time, as the Democrats are doing.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
October 8, 2002

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:2
But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:3
It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:4
But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:5
I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:6
Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:7
Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:8
But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:9
My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:10
Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:11
But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:12
So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:14
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:15
Some- even some in this body- have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:16
Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:17
Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:18
Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:19
Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:20
Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:21
Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:22
Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:23
Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:24
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former. President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh’s article from Nov. 1993:




        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:25
        Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:26
        This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:27
        The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf . Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate. 




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:28
At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:29
Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:30
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:




        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:31
        In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:32
        Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance . To begin with. There were never any victims produced . International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq . The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee …


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:33
        It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds .


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:34
        Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information , and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. 




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:35
Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:36
Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:37
Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:38
Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:




        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:39
        One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three …


        !CITE:
        2002 Ron Paul 96:40
        The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show. 




!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:41
These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:42
Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:43
Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:44
Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:45
Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:46
Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem …"


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 96:47
Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
October 8, 2002

!TITLE:
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America’s struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry’s major foreign competitors.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:2
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:4
Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency recently held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency’s actions are harming shrimpers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:5
However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries have each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 97:9
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidizes to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contribution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industries’ leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 98

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Truth In Financing Act

!DATE:
8 October 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 8, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give taxpayers the power to prevent their tax dollars from subsidizing illegal activity by introducing the Truth in Financing Act. Hard as my colleagues may find it to believe, groups which violate federal and state laws, or make misrepresentations when filing for federal grants, continue to receive federal tax dollars.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 98:2
For example, according to information obtained by my office, federal bureaucrats are giving taxpayer funds to groups which routinely flaunt laws requiring that cases of statutory rape and child molestation be reported to the relevant authorities.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 98:3
In order to insure that taxpayers are not subsidizing this type of unconscionable and illegal behavior, the Truth in Financing Act forbids federal funds from going to anyone who violates a federal law, regulation, or state or local law punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a fine of at least $5,000. The prohibition would also apply to those who aid or abet serious criminal activity, or who lie on an application for federal funds.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 98:4
Most importantly, the Truth in Financing Act allows any U.S. citizen to use the courts to force federal officials to cut off funds from those who violate the law. No longer will taxpayers have to sit silently by while federal bureaucrats shovel money to those who flaunt the laws of this country.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 98:5
Providing federal funds to those who engage in illegal behavior undermines the rule of law and forces taxpayers to fund illegal behavior. If federal bureaucrats will not act to prevent taxpayer funds from going to organizations that violate the laws, then Congress has no choice but to give taxpayers the power to stop this outrage. I hope my colleagues will stand up for the rule of law and the American taxpayer by cosponsoring the Truth in Financing Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 99

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Child Abduction Prevention Act

!DATE:
16 October 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 16, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 5422 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:2
I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER alert system a federal program is neither constitutionality sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnaped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meet the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all federal program (with standards determined by D.C.-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5422 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:5
Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:6
At a time when federal resources are stretched to the limit, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 99:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 5422 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 5422 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 100

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated

!DATE:
16 October 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 16, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place into the record a copy of the Washington Observer newsletter demonstrating the treatment a citizen of the United States received at the hands of agents of the United Nations in New York City. As you can see the attached newsletter demonstrates, Mr. Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network was forcibly removed from the U.N. grounds by three or four uniformed U.N. officers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:2
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Section 7, subsection (b) of the U.N. host country agreement (Establishment of Permanent Headquarters in New York; Agreement Between United Nations and United States; Joint Res. Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 482, 61 Stat. 756) states, in part “the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.” Moreover, as Mawyer states in item #6 on his signed affidavit regarding this incident: “Without asking me to leave, he ordered his security officers, ‘Throw him out of the gates.’ ”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:3
Clearly the photographs included in the attached story evidences the fact that an excessive use of force is apparent. I also understand that a video tape of the entire event is in Mr. Mawyer’s possession.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:4
Mr. Speaker, while I am not charging that the U.N. agents involved have in fact violated U.S. laws, I do believe the attached items demonstrate that sufficient evidence exists for an investigation to be undertaken and I have asked that the International Relations Committee or the appropriate subcommittee to undertake said investigation.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:5
[From the Washington Observer, Sept. 2002]
U.N. ASSAULTS MARTIN MAWYER
Martin Mawyer, President and Founder of THIS NATION, a Project of Christian Action Network, was violently tossed down the steps of U.N. Headquarters in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 4, by U.N. Security officers. He was then placed under arrest after he attempted to deliver petitions to the United Nations from thousands of THIS NATION supporters. Christian Action Network is a national grassroots pro-family organization with a membership of 250,000.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:6
Badly bruised and cut, with his clothes torn and dirtied by the violent treatment, Mawyer was stunned and outraged at the behavior of the U.N. Security officers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:7
“I can’t even express how horrifying, humiliating and painful it was to be treated that way with my staff and my wife and son looking on in shock,” said Mawyer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:8
Mawyer added that the rough treatment was even more shocking since the U.N. had already agreed to accept the petitions when contacted by THIS NATION the previous week.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:9
“Not only did they agree to accept the petitions of our supporters,” said Mawyer, “but they assured us that we would be met on the steps of the U.N. and may possibly be able to meet personally with a U.N. official who would listen to some of our concerns.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:10
“Instead,” he continued, “they were waiting for me on the U.N. steps when I arrived, fully intent on shattering my dignity and resolve to deliver the petitions.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:11
“Well, the U.N. stopped me from delivering the petitions,” he went on, “but they have only deepened my resolve to confront them on issues of grave concern to citizens across America.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:12
Mawyer had intended to deliver 30 bags filled with more than 60,000 petitions to the U.N. from American citizens. The petitions addressed a variety of issues of concern to citizens, including the U.N.’s newly ratified International Criminal Court, a plan to implement a U.N. standing army, the Kyoto global warming treaty, protection of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N. missions abroad, and a host of other issues relating to national sovereignty.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:13
After the U.N. Security officers refused to accept the petitions and tossed him roughly onto the sidewalk, Mawyer attempted to deliver the bags of petitions over the U.N. gate. But U.N. Security officers threw the bags back over the gate onto the sidewalk, scattering petitions into the street.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:14
As soon as Mawyer arrived, U.N. Security called the NYPD. When the police arrived, Mawyer was handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:15
“I sat in jail for several hours not even knowing what I was there for,” he said. After he was released from jail, Mawyer was issued a summons for disorderly conduct.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:16
“It’s clear that there was no reason whatsoever to assault me, arrest me, or charge me,” said Mawyer of the incident. “In fact, they never even asked me to leave the United Nations property. They just ordered the officers to throw me out.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:17
Mawyer added that the summons doesn’t even contain the name or badge number of the arresting NYPD officer.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:18
Mawyer’s attorney, David Carroll, was present during the incident. He said Mawyer clearly did not violate any laws, and was victimized when the U.N. refused to allow him to exercise his First Amendment right to petition the government, and to exercise his free speech. Carroll added that Mawyer may have grounds to file assault charges against the U.N. Security officers.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:19
“What is most outrageous about this incident is that the U.N. has consistently criticized the United States, our law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and has even asked to inspect our prisons and jails to make sure we are treating prisoners fairly,” said Mawyer. “Yet they brutally assaulted me on the steps of their headquarters, then I was tossed in jail, my First Amendment rights were violated — all the while they sit on U.S. soil, enjoying the blessings of our nation and the fruits of our industry. They won’t even accept the valid petitions from the very citizens whose own tax dollars support them.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 100:20
He added, “It’s outrageous, and I intend to expose the arrogance of the U.N. for the entire world to see.”

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 101

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
November 13, 2002

!TITLE:
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. Speaker, when the process of creating a Department of Homeland Security commenced, Congress was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew from 32 pages to 282 pages- and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion. Now we are prepared to vote on a nearly 500-page bill that increases federal expenditures and raises troubling civil liberties questions. Adding insult to injury, this bill was put together late last night and introduced only this morning. Worst of all, the text of the bill has not been made readily available to most members, meaning this Congress is prepared to create a massive new federal agency without even knowing the details. This is a dangerous and irresponsible practice.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:2
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. However, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed Department of Defense in 1945 – two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created that new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedevil the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was passed to deal with problems steaming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:3
HR 5710 grants major new powers to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by granting HHS the authority to "administer" the smallpox vaccine to members of the public if the Department unilaterally determines that there is a public health threat posed by smallpox. HHS would not even have to demonstrate an actual threat of a smallpox attack, merely the "potential" of an attack. Thus, this bill grants federal agents the authority to force millions of Americans to be injected with a potentially lethal vaccine based on nothing more than a theoretical potential smallpox incident. Furthermore, this provision continues to restrict access to the smallpox vaccine from those who have made a voluntary choice to accept the risk of the vaccine in order to protect themselves from smallpox. It is hard to think of a more blatant violation of liberty than allowing government officials to force people to receive potentially dangerous vaccines based on hypothetical risks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:4
While this provision appears to be based on similar provisions granting broad mandatory vaccination and quarantine powers to governors from the controversial "Model Health Emergency Powers Act," this provision has not been considered by the House. Instead, this provision seems to have been snuck into the bill at the last minute. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, before Congress grants HHS such sweeping powers, we should have an open debate instead of burying the authorization in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a 484 page bill!


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 101:6
Mr. Speaker, HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 102

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

!DATE:
November 14, 2002

!TITLE:
Unintended Consequences



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government "benevolence" in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:2
Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could prove so destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally could ignite a worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War III. Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:3
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:4
More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:5
There are numerous other possible consequences. Here are a few worth contemplating:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:6
No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S. "allies."


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:7
Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:8
The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:9
Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:10
In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:11
Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:12
If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and friendship with all nations.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:13
Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause Saddam Hussein to use any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don’t attack him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our own soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could cause a wave of well-placed snipers around the United States.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:14
It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to imagine.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:15
Anti Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s "King of the Hill" must be brought down will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:16
Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war breaks out. Membership is already pervasive throughout the world without any centralized control. We should expect this to continue, with an explosion in membership and a negative impact around the world. Our attack will confirm to the doubters that bin Laden was right in assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern resources and dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel over the Palestinians.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:17
Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:18
Already we’re hearing demands for a military draft to be instituted for both men and women. I see that coming, and it will serve as another source of domestic friction as our economy deteriorates and unemployment rises. Under these conditions the standard of living for all Americans is destined to go down.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:19
This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily usher in a "regime change" here in the United States. The conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire economy.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 102:20
The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming war, will be that the people of the United States will be less free and much poorer. The bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 103

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
“You Are A Suspect”

!DATE:
14 November 2002

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 14, 2002



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of “Total Information Awareness.” According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:2
[New York Times, Nov. 14, 2002]
YOU ARE A SUSPECT
(By William Safire)
Washington — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and email you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as “a virtual, centralized grand database.”


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:3
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a “Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:4
This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:5
Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:6
A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, “The buck stops here,” arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:7
This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the “Information Awareness Office” in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the “data-mining” power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:8
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:9
He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic “stovepiping.” And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:10
When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person’s medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:11
This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O’Harrow of The Washington Post have revealed the extent of Poindexter’s operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:12
Political awareness can overcome “Total Information Awareness,” the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 103:13
The Latin motto over Poindexter’s new Pentagon office reads “Scientia Est Potentia” “knowledge is power.“ Exactly: the government’s infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. “We’re just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy,” this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 104

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!DATE:
December 19th, 2002

!TITLE:
Important Questions Concerning the Administration’s Smallpox Vaccine Proposals



!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:1
(This letter was sent by Congressman Ron Paul to Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in response to announcements that the administration plans mandatory smallpox vaccines for approximately one million soldiers and frontline medical providers)


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:2
Dear Secretary Thompson:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:3
Please provide answers to the following questions regarding the administration’s smallpox vaccination policy:


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:4
1. Does the administration believe it has the legal authority to institute a mandatory vaccine program for any group of Americans?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:5
2. If the answer to question one is yes, would the administration consider implementing a mandatory vaccine program for first responders, if the current voluntary program does not produce what the administration considers a sufficient number of vaccinated first responders to handle a smallpox emergency?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:6
3. Are those who voluntarily receive the smallpox vaccine eligible for compensation from the National Vaccine Compensation Fund?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:7
4. Are individuals who are injured by inadvertent exposure to the smallpox vaccine because of contact with a vaccinated person eligible for compensation from the National Vaccine Compensation Fund?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:8
5. Have any states made plans to mandate smallpox vaccines as part of their bioterrorism defense plan?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:9
6. Does the administration support the provisions in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, which were drafted with the assistance of the Center for Disease Control, which appear to grant individual governors the ability to implement a mandatory smallpox vaccine program?


!CITE:
2002 Ron Paul 104:10
7. If the answer to questions 5 or 6 is yes, how will the administration support and/or assist a governor who has decided to implement a mandatory smallpox vaccination plan?
  Volume 2003 – The Book of Ron Paul


2003 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 7, 2003

!TITLE:
Introduction of the Social Security Preservation Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest-bearing instruments.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 1:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 1:3
The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues, regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 7, 2003

!TITLE:
Say NO to UNESCO



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:1
 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:2
Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in that UNESCO, citing egregious financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO’s general anti-freedom policies. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America’s interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget for that privilege.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:3
Those calling for the United States to rejoin UNESCO claim that the organization has undertaken fundamental reforms and therefore the United States should re-join. It is strange that in the 18 years since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about the beginnings of reform in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly two decades of no change in UNESCO’s way of mismanaging itself things have changed so much in just two years? Is it worth spending $60 million per year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:4
Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been “reforming” its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO’s ongoing highly questionable activities:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:5
UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a U.N.-based school curriculum for American schools.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:6
UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:7
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:8
UNESCO effectively bypasses Congressional authority to manage federal lands, by establishing management policies without Congressional consultation of approval.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 2:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this “Say NO to UNESCO” Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act

!DATE:
7 January 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 7, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America’s struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry’s major foreign competitors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:2
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations, dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS), on the industry. The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:4
Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency’s actions are harming shrimpers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:5
However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:7
Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! Since 1999, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, according to the latest available figures, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export- Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:9
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidies to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contribution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 3:10
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government- manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 7, 2003

!TITLE:
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft- yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:6
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:7
Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:8
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:9
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:10
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:11
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:12
Just last month, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:13
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy” regulation, which allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:14
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:15
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn driver’s licenses into National ID cards, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number, show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. Several other recent polls show most Americans remain skeptical that a national ID card would enhance their security or preserve their liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 4:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 9, 2003

!TITLE:
Restoring the Second Amendment



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 5:2
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 5:3
Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”  Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Republic Versus Democracy

!DATE:
29 January 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:2
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:3
If Madison’s assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the public has vantaged when it occurred and what to expect in the ways of turbulence, contention and violence, and above all else what can we and what will we do about it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:4
The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and Federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermines our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people at the prodding of the politicians to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:5
With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive war and global government drive our foreign policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:6
There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:7
These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:8
In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:9
The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:10
A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:11
Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:12
Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:13
But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious medical problem of addiction.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:14
The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:15
The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:17
The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:18
The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:19
This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:20
Since it was never a precipitous departure from the Republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed, but it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:21
The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:22
Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “hard Wilsonism.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:23
A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:24
Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:25
Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:26
Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the equality of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal Government in medicine is greatly increased.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:27
Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder and concern for liberty languishes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:28
A tax on our homeland form a massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers seen and imagined.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:29
The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:30
Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:31
Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:32
Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as a good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:33
Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies and financial institutions while the poor end up in drug-invested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to this system but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:34
Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare recipients.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:35
Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate in each election.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:36
Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations resulting in a high-stakes system of government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:37
Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:38
More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:39
We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:40
It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:41
It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:42
Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process. And others, out of ignorance, view central bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That is where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money, believing they know how to protect against its ill effects, many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop. It is not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout history by so many other nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:43
The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government’s goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:44
The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:45
As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:46
Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:47
The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet- style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:48
The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:49
Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can’t pay taxes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:50
Even before 9–11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9–11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:51
Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:52
With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:53
Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:54
Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:55
There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan’s Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:56
No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:57
Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy. U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:58
There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:59
The tragedy of 9–11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life. Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:60
Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:61
We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:62
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:63
Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on Congress and the administration? No. All we ever hear are the reassurances that the majority support the President; therefore, it must be all right.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:64
The terrorist attacks are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about impending attacks, but too cumbersome to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize by our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:65
What has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the Federal Government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:67
Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:68
In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:69
Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:70
In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I am optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:71
The same will occur internationally, even if it miraculously did not cause conflict among the groups demanding the loot confiscated from the producing individuals or countries. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under communism. We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:72
With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while propping up an ever-expensive and failing welfare state, and the added funds needed to police the world, all in the midst of a recession, we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of deficit spending. Raising taxes will not help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit, plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing account deficit, will put tremendous pressure on the dollar.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:73
The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate and the cost of living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:74
Facing this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, the borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401(k) funds and other retirement programs, are suffering the ill effects of the stock market crash, a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent on Social Security. Government cost-ofliving increases will never be able to keep up with the loss. The elderly are already unable to afford the inflated cost of medical care, especially the cost of pharmaceuticals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:75
The reality is that we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or borrow our way out of this mess that the Congress has delivered to the American people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:76
The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:77
Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no “king” with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it is the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:78
Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and in percentage of the nation’s wealth.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:79
Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less consequential than the percent of the nation’s wealth the government commands. Borrowing and central bank credit creation are generally used and are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation to pay as we go.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:80
If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, and the democratic con game would end much more quickly.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:81
The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare. The effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is difficult to understand and the victims are hard to identify. Inflation is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that are not affordable.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:82
Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed democracy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:83
This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered “costs” of government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:84
Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property ownership and individual liberty. In contrast, in a free society, all economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the process.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:85
The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson’s dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:87
In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is freechoice democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency. In today’s democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by consumers’ voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not governments armed with mandates from the majority.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:88
Even a system of free market money, a redeemable gold coin standard, functions through the principle of consumers always voting or withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a daily basis for or against the government’s money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:89
It is too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned us about. It has already started. But it is important to minimize the damage and prepare a way for the restoration of the Republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end with less violence than could ever have been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:90
Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion, especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether political, educational or in the media, that rejects democracy and supports the rule of law within the Republic. This majority support is essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which America is identified.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:91
This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human Progress,” explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:92
Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. Freedom requires selfcontrol and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:93
In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:94
Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:95
A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interests and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is gone.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:96
When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty and must resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone. This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what one can eat, drink, smoke, or whatever. One group may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer, pornography and sexual behavior are endless. It is now not even permissible to mention the word “God” on public property. A people who allows its government to set personal moral standards for all nonviolent behavior will naturally allow it to be involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but not for those whose benefits are considered out of the mainstream.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:97
Groups that do not meet the official politically correct standards are more likely to be put on the terrorist list.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:98
This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the role of government is limited to that of protecting freedom.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:99
The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big “why?”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:100
There is no easy answer to this and no single explanation. It involves temptation, envy, greed and ignorance, but worst of all humanitarian zeal. Unfortunately, the greater the humanitarian outreach, the greater the violence required to achieve it. The greater the desire to perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the greater is the violence required to achieve it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:101
Few understand this. There are literally no limits to the good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all human progress: individual liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:102
Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:103
The results, though, are frightening and will soon even become more so. Poverty has been made worse. The drug war is a bigger threat than drug use. Terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become routine and decided upon without congressional approval.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:104
Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government mistake.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:105
C.S. Lewis had an opinion on this subject: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some times be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:106
A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority over other people’s lives, unlike the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who produce. Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-giveaway programs and government contracts. These special interest groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the middle class is required to pay.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:107
It is not a coincidence that in the times of rapid monetary debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the inflation and the job losses that monetary inflation brings. When inflation is severe, which it will become, the middle class can be completely wiped out. The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is likely to come as this country is forced to pay for the excesses sustained over the past 30 years while operating under a fiat monetary system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:108
Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject as well. “Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:109
Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade men’s souls when the love of liberty is absent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:110
Those of goodwill who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their own arrogance and a lust for power. Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to dictate to others and seek power for the sake of power and then abuse it. Most members of society are complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:111
A free society, on the other hand, requires these same desires be redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one’s self alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed inwardly rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:112
But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation’s Capital. A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled out by special interest protectionist measures. Support of international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:113
The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our governmentrun universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:114
The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism, both domestic and international, serve to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people, and this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:115
We as a Nation have lost our understanding of how the free market provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and Hayek and Rothbart, the individuals who understood exactly why all economic ups and downs in the 20th century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:116
But worst of all we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns and desire for security drive our national politics. This trend has been sharply accelerated since 9–11.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:117
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:118
The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:119
But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:120
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:121
Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 6:122
Eventually the solution will come with the passage of the liberty amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of the constitutional republic and a protection of individual liberty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 28, 2003

!TITLE:
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money.  The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life.  Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:5
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS)  “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 7:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 28, 2003

!TITLE:
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens


HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 28, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 8:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 8:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund moneys for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 8:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 29, 2003

!TITLE:
Abolish Selective Service



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code.  The Department of Defense, in response to recent calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose. In 1999, then-Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”   


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 9:2
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration.  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 9:3
In fact, in 1993 the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on an outdated system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 9:4
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our nation was founded upon.  The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979:   “...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea .”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 9:5
I hope all my colleagues to join me in working to shut down this un-American relic of a bygone era and help realize the financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be achieved by ending Selective Service registration.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 29, 2003

!TITLE:
The Terror Immigration Elimination Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:2
The United States remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks more than a year after the tragedy of 9/11. Our borders remain porous - a virtual revolving door and welcome mat for those who would seek to harm us. This was never more evident than when news broke some time ago that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had actually renewed the visas for several of the 9/11 hijackers after the attack had taken place. We cannot prevent terrorism if we cannot keep terrorists out of our country.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:3
That is why I am introducing the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003.” This bill will deny student and “diversity” visas to anyone coming from a country currently on the State Department’s list of terrorism-sponsoring countries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:4
It may seem shocking that citizens from these countries can even still receive these visas, but it is true. We must put a lock on this revolving door if we are going to protect Americans from the continuing threat of terrorism on our soil.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:5
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is time we face reality regarding Saudi Arabia. We must remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Also, when al-Qaeda supporters were rounded up from Afghanistan and held at Camp X-Ray, reports showed that of the 158 prisoners more than one hundred were Saudi nationals. With such an evident level of involvement from Saudi nationals in these activities, it is quite obvious that the Saudi government is not doing all it can, or all it should, in resolving this urgent problem. Therefore, Saudi citizens will also be denied student and “diversity” visas to the United States under this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, we need to take concrete and substantive steps to protect the United States and its citizens against further terrorist attacks. One such step is passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to its passage.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
January 29, 2003

!TITLE:
Social Security for American Citizens Only!



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year’s an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for social security benefits!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the Untied States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger.  Just before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between the United States and the government of Mexico, which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits.  Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal, so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: The federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:6
Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:7
As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 11:8
It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Expand Medicare MSA Program

!DATE:
5 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 5, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:2
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover nonroutine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by the senior, not by bureaucrats and politicians.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:3
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:4
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:6
However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cooking cutter program designed by Washington- DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 12:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs by cosponsoring my legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 5, 2003

!TITLE:
The Family Education Freedom Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for  parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty”. Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education market.  Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:4
According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of  educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as  music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:8
Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According a Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:10
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:11
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 13:12
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 5, 2003

!TITLE:
Teacher Tax Cut Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are under-appreciated and under-paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 14:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators’ pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators’ take home pay by reducing educators’ taxes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 14:3
This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 14:4
The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America’s professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 14:5
I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation’s teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Hope Plus Scholarship Act

!DATE:
5 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 5, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which extends the HOPE scholarship tax credit to K–12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the HOPE Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents finally afford to send their child to a private school, while other parents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their children’s school. I urge my colleagues to join with me in returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring my Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 5, 2003

!TITLE:
Education Improvement Tax Cut Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of  block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by  holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual   communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities   to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control  over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious  schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs.  These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and   increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-funded vouchers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 16:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is who should control the education dollar- politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education  Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 11, 2003

!TITLE:
Prescription Drug Affordability Act



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. 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 also removes needless government barriers to importing    pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable  prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal   regulation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:2
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. 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.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:3
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 US or is adulterated or misbranded.  This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted  by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers  which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation this provisions have been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals are removed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine 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 that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 17:6
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 Prescription Drug Affordability Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Middle East Conflict

!DATE:
11 February 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly must oppose this resolution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 18:2
Though I am sure this resolution commending Israel for holding free elections was introduced with the best intentions, this legislation unfortunately goes further than a simple commendation. The legislation as written will only once again inject the United States into the decades-old and intractable conflict in the Middle East. By commending Israel while at the same time demanding that the Palestinians take specific actions, this legislation places the United States squarely in the middle of a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with American interests. Also, the resolution states that the United States is committed to secure peace for Israel. We cannot afford nor are we constitutionally permitted to play referee in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and securing peace for any country but the United States is not the role of this body.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 18:3
We must resist the temptation to meddle in the affairs of far-away nations no matter how good our intentions may be. If we are to keep our Constitutional republic we must uphold the wise counsel of those who crafted our founding set of laws.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 18:4
Thomas Jefferson summed up the foreign policy position we must uphold in his 1801 inaugural address: “People, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the U.S. must “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Do so many on Capitol Hill now believe Washington was wrong?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 18:5
Mr. Speaker, how many more times must we place ourselves and our country at risk by taking one side or other in battles, wars, and conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States, and where anger toward the United States will inevitably result? I urge my colleagues to uphold the Constitution and vote against this unfortunately-worded resolution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights

!DATE:
11 February 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 11, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly vote against this measure. We can all agree that Libya is a ridiculous choice to head a human rights commission in any civilized organization. The State Department has long listed Libya on its list of states sponsoring terrorism. Libya has shown over the years that it has no respect whatsoever for human rights, when it comes to its dealings with the rest of the world or even its own citizens. Additionally, this election just underscores what I have been saying for years about the United Nations: it is an organization that undermines American sovereignty and consistently works against U.S. interests.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 19:2
The problem with this legislation, however, is that it pretends to be something it is not. It pretends to be simply a condemnation of the elevation of Libya to head the UN Commission on Human Rights. Were that the case I would have voted in favor of the measure.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 19:3
But unfortunately the legislation ventures off course from there. The legislation calls on the president to demand that sanctions against Libya be initiated anew, after they had already been suspended. I do not believe that sanctions have ever hurt a dictator or repressive regime. On the contrary, sanctions against an authoritarian regime only give the leaders a scapegoat for the sufferings of their people — while the leadership itself manages to avoid any hardship. Sanctions do not lead to the defeat of these kinds of regimes, but actually strengthen them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 19:4
Cuba is an excellent example: the United States has maintained sanctions against that nation for four decades, but its dictator is stronger than ever. The best way to break the hold of dictatorship on a country is to engage and trade with that country. Trade with a repressive regime brings in goods and ideas that undermine the hold of the ruling elites on power. It breaks the monopolization on economic activity that characterizes a closed society and economic system. It weakens dictatorships and it enriches the population.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 19:5
Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow members in condemning Libya’s election to chair the UN Human Rights Committee. I do not support sanctions, be they against Libya or any other country.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act

!DATE:
12 February 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday February 12, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as someone who has, my share of insolicited telemarketing calls, I sympahize fully with the concerns of the sponsors of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (HR 395). However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to “put a stop” to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 20:2
In addition to exceeding Congress’ constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country’s founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own “do-not-call” list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No- Call Implementation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 13, 2003

!TITLE:
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs.  This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:2
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for routine medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by seniors, not by bureaucrats and politicians.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:4
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:5
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:7
However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 21:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs, by cosponsoring legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!TITLE:
Oppose the Federal Welfare State

!DATE:
February 13, 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:2
H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:3
H.R. 4 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help welfare recipients obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the states at a time when many are facing a fiscal crisis.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:5
As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura pointed out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing approximately $10 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:8
H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 22:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing United States Korea Normalization Resolution Of 2003

!DATE:
13 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 13, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the United States-Korea Normalization Resolution of 2003.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:2
Sixty years ago American troops fought in a United Nations “police action” on the Korean Peninsula. More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. Sixty years later, some 37,000 U.S. troops remain in South Korea, facing a North Korean army of nearly a million persons. After 60 years, we can no longer afford this commitment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:3
The U.S. defense guarantee of South Korea costs more than $3 billion per year in direct costs and approximately $12 billion per year in total costs. Total U.S. aid to South Korea has exceeded $14 billion since the war.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:4
But South Korea of today is not the Korea of 1950. Today’s South Korea is a modem, industrialized, economic powerhouse; it has a gross domestic product more than 40 times that of communist North Korea. It has a military more than 700,000 persons strong. Nor is it at all clear that the continued U.S. military presence is necessary — or desired.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:5
Not long ago, incoming South Korean President Roh Moo-huyn, recognizing that the current tension is primarily between the United States and North Korea, actually offered to serve as a mediator between the two countries. It is an astonishing move considering that it is the United States that provides South Korea a security guarantee against the North. Additionally, it is becoming more obvious every day that with the man on the South Korean street, the United States military presence in their country is not desired and in fact viewed as a threat.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:6
We cannot afford to continue guaranteeing South Korea’s borders when we cannot defend our own borders and when our military is stretched to the breaking point. We cannot continue subsidizing South Korea’s military when it is clear that South Korea has the wherewithal to pay its own way. We cannot afford to keep our troops in South Korea when it is increasingly clear that they are actually having a destabilizing effect and may be hindering a North-South rapprochement.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:7
That is why I am introducing the United States-Korea Normalization Resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress that, 60 years after the Korean War, the U.S. security guarantee to South Korea should end, as should the stationing of American troops in South Korea.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 23:8
I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting and co-sponsoring this legislation.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Another United Nations War

!DATE:
25 February 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:2
Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of U.N. expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly, both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:3
Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties and over $1 trillion in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a U.N. war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:4
As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the U.N. was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified, Communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-Communist and trade with the West is routine. We did not disarm Vietnam; we never counted their weapons; and so far, no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well, even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:5
In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:6
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:7
But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing U.N. security resolutions. That does not make any sense. If one wants to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds, hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the United Nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:8
The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U.S. Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:9
Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:10
From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 24:11
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Emancipation Proclamation

!DATE:
26 February 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 36. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America’s founding principles, as expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. In order to give my colleagues, and all Americans, the opportunity to see what President Lincoln did and did not do, I am inserting the Emancipation Proclamation into the RECORD.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:2
While all Americans should be grateful that this country finally extinguished slavery following the Civil War, many scholars believe that the main issue in the Civil War was the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government. President Lincoln himself made it clear that his primary motivation was to preserve a strong central government. For example, in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all freedom-loving Americans to join me in celebrating the end of slavery.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:4
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
By the President of the United States of America:
A PROCLAMATION Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:5
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:6
“That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:7
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:8
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the fortyeight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:9
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:10
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:11
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed serivce of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 25:12
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Stem Cell research

!DATE:
27 February 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, these words are from Frederic Bastiat’s The Law. They are prophetic, not only in the way they describe legislators’ attempts to transform society through socialized economic planning, but also in the analogy to the current moral issue before us today: human cloning.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:2
Human life begins at conception. This fact is not a matter of faith. Every contemporary textbook of human embryology teaches that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. When an embryo is cloned, a distinct human being is created: if implanted into a woman’s uterus, he or she grows into a human being. Those who deny the humanity of the “embryo” simply deny the facts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:3
Today we see another instance of the legislator playing God, viewing himself as Bastiat’s farmer or chemist. But human embryos are not just some “seeds” for the “farmers” to scatter! I ask those of you wishing to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning: Were you not once at this very stage of life? Is not each of you a developed embryo? And to those who view cloning and the accompanying destruction of humans at the embryonic stage of life as morally acceptable, I ask this, Are you aware that it took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep, and when she finally was born, she was defective and died soon after? We must shudder to think of what this kind of experimentation implies for humans. Many ignore that a human is not cloned by simply waving a magic wand — rather, embryos are experimented upon and then discarded before a human is created via cloning. Many prolifers mistakenly attack the act of cloning, when what they should address is the discarding of humans at the embryonic stage of development that precedes the act of cloning.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:4
Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the letter of the law.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:5
In Congress we can either pass an unconstitutional ban on cloning, or we can abide by the law and not pass the ban, as bureaucrats continue to have control over human cloning and use of taxpayer funds to destroy human life. These bureaucrats seem to have no difficulty violating the consciences of those who recognize cloning experimentation for what it is. What is to be done? I fear the answer to this question, and its implications, will continue to haunt us in the months and years to come, whether or not this federal ban on human cloning passes. Mr. Speaker, when we last considered this issue I placed the following statement in the RECORD and wish to do so once again.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we’re being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research. As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning offtrack, dangerous, and missing some very important points. This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones. However, this debate is as must about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:7
This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:8
Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:9
Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner. There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding. The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a President order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law. Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:10
The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant. The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:11
Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:12
There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay. Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:13
There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:14
Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype. How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments. For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:15
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:16
What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:17
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction. We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:18
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 26:19
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research. Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 28, 2003

!TITLE:
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services Committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2004.”   Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:3
The committee shows complete disregard for the American taxpayer and the United Sates Constitution by embracing increases in foreign aid. Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely improves the standard of living of the citizens of the “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals embraced by the committee smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that if a country’s economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats, they will be rewarded with money stolen from American taxpayers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:4
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations.  Ex-Im exists to subsidize corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards.  Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:5
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:6
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services Committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by passing legislation requiring congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:7
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s views is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially troubling given that many Americans have lost their jobs, while millions of others have seen severe declines in their net worth, because of the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy. It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need for reform of the system of fiat currency that is responsible for the cycle of booms and busts that plague the American economy.  Until this committee addresses those issues, I am afraid the American economy may suffer more recessions or even depressions in the future.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 27:8
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services Committee endorse increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability. 

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
March 4, 2003

!TITLE:
The Myth of War Prosperity



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight about an economic myth. There is a longstanding myth that war benefits the economy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:2
The argument goes that when a country is at war, jobs are created and the economy grows. This is a myth.   Many argue that World War II ended the Great Depression, which is another myth.   Unemployment went down because many men were drafted, but national economic output went down during the war.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:3
Economic growth and a true end to the Depression did not occur until after World War II. So it is wrong to think there is an economic benefit arising from war.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:4
There are many economic shortcomings during a war. During wartime it is much more common to experience inflation because the money presses are running to fund military expenses.  Also, during wartime there is a bigger challenge to the currency of the warring nation, and already we see that the dollar has dropped 20 percent in the past year.  Although there are many other reasons for a weak dollar, the war certainly is contributing to the weakness in the dollar.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:5
Also, during wartime the country can expect that taxes will go up. I know we are talking about cutting taxes, and I am all for cutting taxes; but in real terms taxes will go up during wartime. And it is inevitable that deficits increase. And right now our deficits are exploding. Our national debt is going up nearly $500 billion per year at an analyzed rate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:6
The other shortcoming economically of wartime is that funds, once they are borrowed, inflated, or taxed, once the government spends these, so much of this expenditure is overseas, and it takes away from domestic spending. So this is a strong negative for the domestic economy. Another thing that arises during wartime so often is the sentiment for protectionism- and a weak economy in wartime will really build an incentive for protectionist measures, and we are starting to see that, which I think is a danger.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:7
During wartime, trade is much more difficult; and so if a war comes, we can expect that even our trade balances might get much worse. There are a lot of subjective problems during wartime too. The first thing that goes is confidence.   Right now there is less confidence in the stock market and literally hundreds of billions of dollars lost in the stock market in the last year or two, again, due to other reasons; but the possibility of war contributes to this negative sentiment toward the stock market.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:8
It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential for war and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned- and this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already.

There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope.   
And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size.   
It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war.    
This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore,   
it diminishes personal individual liberty.  




!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:9
So these are the costs that we cannot ignore.  We have the cost of potential loss of life, but there are also tremendous economic costs that even the best economists cannot calculate closely.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:10
War should always be fought as the very, very last resort. It should never be done casually, but only when absolutely necessary. And when it is, I believe it should be fought to be won.  It should be declared.  It should not be fought under U.N. resolutions or for U.N. resolutions, but for the sovereignty and the safety and the security of this country. It is explicit in our Constitution that necessary wars be declared by the Congress. And that is something that concerns me a great deal because we have not declared war outright since 1945, and if you look carefully, we have not won very many since then.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 28:11
We are lingering in Korea. What a mess! We have been there for 58 years, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still have achieved nothing- because we went there under U.N. resolutions and we did not fight to victory. The same was true with the first Persian Gulf War.  We went into Iraq without a declaration of war. We went there under the U.N., we are still there, and nobody knows how long we will be there. So there are many costs, some hidden and some overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost of war is the threat to individual liberty. So I caution my colleagues that we should move much more cautiously and hope and pray for peace.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Social Security Protection Act Of 2003

!DATE:
5 March 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 5, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal social security reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 29:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing H.R. 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 29:3
Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit Act (H.R. 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures that noncitizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003

!DATE:
6 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 6, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:2
This bill prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:4
Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2002, President George W. Bush took the commendable step of repudiating the signature of the United States on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, stating that the United States “can no longer be a party” to the International Criminal Court. He also requested that those states choosing membership in the Court respect the decision of the United States in this matter.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Speaker, the Court is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:9
Last year Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act within the Defense Authorization bill. Commendable as that effort was, the fact of the matter is that because of the numerous loopholes and exemptions in that legislation, our servicemembers are still not protected from the probing arms of the International Criminal Court. American citizens have absolutely no protection under last year’s legislation. This is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing this legislation that makes the position of the United States clear: we will protect our servicemembers and citizens from this illegal court.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 30:10
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by cosponsoring the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.”

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003

!DATE:
6 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 6, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans — both civilians and members of our armed services — are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:2
The United States continues to pay the lion’s share of the U.N. budget, yet it is routinely kicked off committees like the Human Rights Committee by some of the most egregious of human rights abusing countries. This is absurd and we shouldn’t have to pay for it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:3
As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations — as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107–243) — it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:4
This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the U.N.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:5
The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N.; the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military operation; and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under U.N. command.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:6
The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I hope for its quick consideration.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:7
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:12
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1–10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article I of Magna Carta, puts it:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:13
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ’We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two– thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two–thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:22
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 31:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Quality Health Care Coalition Act

!DATE:
12 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 12, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by expanding access to Medical Savings Accounts and providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 32:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act

!DATE:
12 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 12, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 33:2
Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 33:3
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 33:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 33:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)

!DATE:
13 March 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant women unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:2
However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry. Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians, which both sides in this debate claim to represent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:4
H.R. 5 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liabilities to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Ironically, H.R. 5 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in some states by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:5
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. H.R. 5 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:7
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:8
I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249 provides tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:9
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation, such as my Quality Health Care Coalition Act (H.R. 1247), that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their losses in the stock market.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 34:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Crisis In Healthcare

!DATE:
13 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 13, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:3
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. This is why today I am introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. This legislation puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Medical Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:4
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:5
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:6
C. Makes every American eligible for an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) and changes the tax laws to increase the benefits of MSAs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:7
D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 35:8
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a recent poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Medical Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Amber Alert Concerns

!DATE:
19 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 19, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:2
I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of communitybased law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:6
At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 36:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy

!DATE:
20 March 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as we vote today to commend our troops, I would like to take the opportunity to express my personal support for our brave men and women in uniform who are in harm’s way, and to hope for their safe return home after a victory on the battlefield.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 37:2
The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally- enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 37:3
Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 37:4
For now all such foreign policy debates are on hold, and I hope all Americans will join in supporting our troops in the successful completion of their mission.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Citizenship Amendment

!DATE:
20 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 20, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Citizenship Amendment. Under current U.S. laws, any person born on American soil can claim American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of that child’s parents. This means that any alien who happens to give birth in the United States has just given birth to an American citizen, eligible for all the benefits and privileges afforded to citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 38:2
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted the Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 38:3
What the current state of events has led to is a booming business in smuggling pregnant mothers over the border to give birth to new “American” citizens, who in turn become eligible for all the benefits thereof. Practically, what this does is cheapen citizenship: rather than impart all the obligations and responsibilities of being an American it becomes merely a ticket to welfare and other benefits. The history of the United States is that of immigrants: individuals from diverse backgrounds accepted the obligations of citizenship in exchange for the great benefits of living in the freest nation on earth.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 38:4
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
March 27, 2003

!TITLE:
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 39:1
Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 39:2
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 39:3
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 39:4
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
March 27, 2003

!TITLE:
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:1

Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.”   Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:2
Unfortunately, most health care reform proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:3
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.  This why today I am introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. This legislation puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Medical Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:4
A.  Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes- meaning even low-income taxpayers benefit;


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:5
B.  Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs);


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:6
C.  Makes every American eligible for an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) and changes the tax laws to increase the benefits of MSAs;


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:7
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 40:8
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a recent poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Medical Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners

!DATE:
April 1, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:1
Madam Speaker, this week we will be working on the $75 billion supplemental appropriations to pay for the war. Financing the war is not as simple as it appears. It involves more than just passing a piece of legislation labeled as support for the troops.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:2
It has now been fashionable to bash France and Germany and other friends if they are less enthusiastic for the war than we think they should be. Yet foreign corporations provide millions of jobs for American citizens. French companies alone employ over 400,000. There is a practical reason why offending the French and others may backfire on us.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:3
In 2002 we earned $11.9 billion less from our investments overseas than foreigners did here. This is not a sign of financial strength. A negative balance on the income account contributes to the $500 billion annual current account deficit. Since 1985 when we became a deficit nation, we have acquired a foreign debt of approximately $2.8 trillion, the world’s largest. No nation can long sustain a debt that continues to expand at a rate greater than 5 percent of the GDP. This means we borrowed more than $1.4 billion every day to keep the borrowing binge going. This only can be maintained until foreigners get tired of taking and holding our dollars and buying our debt. Bashing the French and others will only hasten the day that sets off the train of economic events that will please no one.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:4
In thinking about providing funds for the war and overall military expenditures, not only must every dollar be borrowed from overseas, but an additional $150 billion each year as well. The current account deficit is now 44 percent greater than the military budget and represents the amount we must borrow to balance the accounts. The bottom line is that our international financial condition is dire and being made worse by current international events.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:5
It is true that military might gives a boost to a nation’s currency; but this is not permanent if fiscal and monetary policies are abused. Currently, our budget deficits are exploding, as there is no restraint on spending.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:6
No one can guarantee permanent military superiority.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:7
The dollar has already significantly weakened this past year, and this trend will surely continue. A weaker dollar requires that we pay more for everything we buy overseas. Foreign borrowing will eventually become more difficult, and this will in time cause interest rates to rise. Be assured that domestic price inflation will accelerate. Economic law dictates that these events will cause the recession to linger and deepen.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:8
My humble advice, consider being nicer to our friends and allies. We need them more than we can imagine to finance our war efforts. There is more to it than passing the supplemental appropriation. Besides, we need time to get our financial house in order. Antagonizing our trading partners can only make that task that much more complicated.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 41:9
The day will come when true monetary reform will be required. Printing money to finance war and welfare can never be a panacea.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
April 2, 2003

!TITLE:
No Federal Funding for Abortion!



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion. First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 42:2
Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 42:3
Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 42:4
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!TITLE:
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

!DATE:
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 43:3
As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Social Security Protection Act

!DATE:
2 April 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to HR 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 44:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing HR 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 44:3
Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit act (HR 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (HR 489), which ensures that non-citizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Rice Farmers Fairness Act

!DATE:
2 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 2, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to nonproducers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:5
America’s rice farmers are the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world, despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. The Rice Farmer Fairness Act helps remove one of these hurdles and this makes America’s rice farmers even more efficient. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations. Congress should eliminate the burdensome taxes and regulations imposed on America’s farmers. I hope my colleagues will join me in removing these federally imposed burdens on rice farmers by supporting free trade, low taxes and regulations, and cosponsoring my Rice Farmer Fairness Act.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:6
Mr. Speaker, I rise to help parents of children with special educational needs by introducing the Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability an up to $3,000 tax credit for educational expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to control their child’s education. Thus, this bill helps parents of special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the child’s unique needs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:7
Helping parents provide their child with an education designed around the child’s individual needs is far superior to the “one size fits all” cookie cutter, bureaucratized approach that has dominated special education for the past 30 years. This approach is inappropriate for any child, but it is especially harmful for special needs children. The HOPE for Children Act puts control over education resources back in the hands of those who know best, and care most about, the unique needs of children: parents.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 45:8
The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to provide those children with an education that matches their child’s unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats or engage in lengthy and costly litigation. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending

!DATE:
3 April 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:2
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines’ private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:3
Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually contains less money than the administration requested for homeland security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston, New York and other major American cities.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:4
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:5
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 46:6
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America’s economy by engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to national security. This bill endangers America’s economic health by adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit. Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing to enhance America’s security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Second Amendment Restoration Act

!DATE:
9 April 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm believer in the second amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals the misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect the Constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:2
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limited the role of the federal governments in dealing with civil liability matters; instead, it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as gun related alleged-negligence suits, to the state legislatures from which their respective jurisdictions flow.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:3
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval for the nature of these very suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages form gun violence should be aimed at the perpetrators of those crimes, not the manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by the one who stole the weapon). I fear these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice but by a search for deep pockets, since gun manufactures have higher incomes than the average criminals, and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:4
These attacks on gun manufacturers are disturbing, since the gun industry provides our law enforcement and military with the necessary tools needed to fight crime and defend our country. We should be helping our law enforcement officers and military, not hurting them by putting reputable gun manufacturers out of business.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:5
However, Mr. Chairman, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that the gun, an inanimate object, is somehow responsible for crimes. H.R. 1036 enables individuals to abrogate responsibility for their actions, in that it allows gun dealers to be sued because they “should have known” the gun would be used in a crime. Under H.R. 1036, gun dealers will still be unjustly forced to scrutinize their customers for criminal intent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:6
This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one’s own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to complete a crime (such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, and baseball bats). Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not — its implications are preposterous.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
United States Embargo On Cuba

!DATE:
9 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 9, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful and counterproductive United States Embargo on Cuba.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:2
On June 29, 2001, the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:3
“We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:4
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:5
Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:6
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 48:7
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
April 9, 2003

!TITLE:
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which went into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize health care as much as politically possible.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:2
Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s records simply by entering an identifier into a health care database.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:3
The dangers to liberty inherent in the “uniform health identifier” are magnified by the so-called “medical privacy” regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protecting the individual’s right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Some individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:4
The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:5
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:6
Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information, accessible to anyone who knows the individual’s unique health identifier.  History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:7
In addition to law enforcement, these so-called privacy protection regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. My medical office recently received a Model “Privacy Act Compliance” form. This three-page form lists over 20 situations where medical information may be disclosed without individual consent. Medical information may be disclosed to attorneys, business associates of the provider, and federal agencies conducting “health oversight activities.” Medical information may also be divulged without consent to insurance companies and medical researchers!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:8
Medical researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, but the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes increases the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:9
Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:10
In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.”  Rather, it should be up to individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined common good, they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:11
As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these privacy regulations and the unique health identifier scheme. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:12
Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:13
I ask my colleagues to consider how comfortable you would be confiding an embarrassing physical or emotional problem to your physicians if you knew that any and all information given your doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers, handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant or accessed by anyone who happens to know your unique health identifier?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:14
By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a unique health care identifier, while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledge this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past five fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repealing these dangerous medical privacy rules.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 49:15
Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Agriculture Education Freedom Act

!DATE:
10 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 10, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 50:2
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the handwringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 50:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 50:4
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4–H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
April 29, 2003

!TITLE:
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor.   I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations.  Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests.   Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:2
Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq.   The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act.  But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions.  The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:3
Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:4
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well.  UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes.  They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws.  UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army.  This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website.  UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it.  They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans.  They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:5
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance.  American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body.  This needs to be stated publicly more often.  If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:6
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.”   Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution.  As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government.  The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people.   We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties.  They do not.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 51:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146.   Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act

!DATE:
30 April 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus strips control over education from local communities and the parents of disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of “Cookie Cutter” approach. In fact, the “Cookie Cutter” approach is especially inappropriate for special needs children.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:2
At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill, expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011. After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as much as they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many members’ public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal bureaucracy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:3
There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental consent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:4
However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with significant “overidentification” of disabled students. Mr. Chairman, the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new mandates on the states!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:5
When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too much federal involvement is disabilities education.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:6
I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding education by imposing new mandates, or just making it more difficult for hard-working, education professionals to properly educate our children?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:7
The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:8
On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in mainstream classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:9
H.R. 1350 also burdens parents by requiring them to go through a time-consuming process of bureaucracy and litigation to obtain a proper education for their child. I have been told that there are trial lawyers actively soliciting dissatisfied parents of special needs children as clients for lawsuits against local schools! Parents and school districts should not be wasting resources that could go to educating children enriching trial lawyers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:10
Instead of placing more federal control on education, Congress should allow parents of disabled children the ability to obtain the type of education appropriate for that child’s unique needs by passing my Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003, H.R. 1575. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability a tax cut of up to $3,000 for educational expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to control their child’s education. Thus, this bill helps parents of special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the child’s unique needs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:11
The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to provide those children with an education that matches their child’s unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats or engage in lengthy and costly litigation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 52:12
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington’s existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents’ pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa

!DATE:
1 May 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to something in the committee report that I consider an error, and I would like to make a suggestion so that it might not occur again. This particular legislation, not the rule as much as the legislation, I am not in support of for various reasons.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:2
One, I think the odds are very slim that it is going to do a whole lot of good. It is very well-intended. I am a physician, and I cannot think of anything better than to wipe out AIDS in Africa, or in the United States, for that matter. But $15 billion going to Africa on a questionable program bothers me because at the same time, we are cutting benefits to our veterans and also the elderly have a hard time getting medical care here. So there is a practical argument against the legislation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:3
In the bill and in the amendments, there is a lot of social engineering going on. I think if we are going to do any social engineering or social suggestions, it ought to be here and we ought not be naive enough to think we can change habits that exist in Africa.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:4
But the point I wanted to bring up is the authority for doing programs like this. We have a rule in the House that we have to cite the constitutional authority, for the legislation we’re dealing with. The committee report cites the authority from a very important section of the Constitution, article I, section 8, because literally we, the Congress, get our marching orders from article I, section 8, which is the section of the Constitution relating to making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:5
Well, that is where the shortcoming comes because if we read the Constitution, at the end of article I, section 8, it says, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Therefore, the “necessary and proper” clause is explicitly designed to give the authority to write the laws for the foregoing powers. Believe me, we will not find any authority in article I, section 8 for dealing with medical care problems in Africa.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:6
I find it interesting here because quite often one side of the aisle when they do not like legislation will use my argument in this case, and other times it is the other side of the aisle. So everybody makes my argument one time or the other. My suggestion is if the Constitution means anything, and if article I, section 8 means anything, it ought to be applied across the board or we ought to change the Constitution and say this is a mandate from the American people that we should pursue missionary work in Africa.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 53:7
But most likely nobody is going to propose a change in the Constitution, the Constitution will not be changed, so the Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution when it feel like it; therefore, we have reduced the Constitution to something that has very little value anymore.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS

!DATE:
1 May 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a physician I am particularly concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS. I have great sympathy for those — in increasing numbers — who suffer and die around the world. The question is not whether each and every one of us is concerned or would like to do something about this terrible problem. The question is whether yet another massive government foreign aid program will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. The United States has been sending billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “build democracy” and “fight drugs” and “end poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these things have actually gotten worse rather than better. Our money has disappeared into bank accounts of dictators and salaries for extremely well-paid consultants and U.S. Government employees. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes; we are about to make another multi-billion dollar mistake with this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 54:2
Though I have not been in favor of Federal Government funding of healthcare, if this money is going to be spent why shouldn’t it be spent in this country, on American citizens? One legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens and taxpayers. Yet thousands of Americans who have contracted this terrible disease find themselves without any healthcare at all. Thousands of these Americans, as they become ill, are no longer able to work and therefore lose their insurance coverage. Drugs to treat the disease become impossible to afford; those with disease end up along and in misery. I seriously wonder whether negative perceptions of those at risk in this country do not drive this push to send billions abroad rather than address the disease here at home. I believe that if this money is to be spend it should be spent on Americans, regardless of what some may think about those high-risk groups.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 54:3
Bills like the one we are considering today also force Americans to fund programs and organizations that many find morally objectionable, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortion. While some amendments we are voting on today admirably seek to address some of these concerns, the fact remains that this bill even if amended unconstitutionally sends U.S. taxpayer money overseas and inappropriately engages in social engineering abroad. None of the amendments address the immorality of forcing Americans to fund organizations engaged in family planning, performing abortions, and distributing condoms. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas be disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” That is why I have introduced H.R. 1548, a bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. What we are seeing today on the floor just underscores the need to pass H.R. 1548 — to end this tyrannical and sinful practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs they believe to be immoral and evil.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Voter Protection Act

!DATE:
1 May 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 1, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called “campaign reform” proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Fairness Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:2
I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:3
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia’s overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:4
My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:5
The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 55:6
The Voter Protection Act is a constitutional way to reform campaign laws to increase voter participation by making the election process fairer and open to new candidates and ideas. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this true campaign reform bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts

!DATE:
6 May 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the current tax debate is more about politics than serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but propose only modest tax cuts. The benefits that could come from the current tax cut proposal, unfortunately, are quite small and not immediate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:2
Some say tax cuts raise revenues by addressing economic activity, thus providing Congress with even more money to spend. Others say lowering taxes simply lowers revenues and increases deficits. Some say we must target tax cuts to the poor and the middle class so they will spend more money. Others say tax cuts should be targeted to the rich so they can invest and create jobs. We must accept that it is hard to give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes. But we could, if we wanted, cut payroll taxes for lower-income workers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:3
The truth is, government officials cannot know what consumers and investors will do if they get a tax cut. Plugging tax cut data into a computer and expecting an accurate projection of the economic outcome is about as reliable as asking Congress to project government surpluses. Two important points are purposely ignored: first, the money people earn is their own, and they have a moral right to keep as much of it as possible. It is not Congress’ money to spend. Government spending is the problem. Taking a big chunk of the people’s earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. Taxation is more honest and direct and the harm is less hidden. Borrowing, especially since the Federal Reserve creates credit out of thin air to loan to big spenders in Congress, is more deceitful. It hides the effects and delays the consequences. But over the long term, this method of financing is much more dangerous.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:4
The process by which the Fed monetizes debt and accommodates Congress contributes to, if not causes, most of our problems. This process of government financing generates the business cycle and thus increases unemployment. It destroys the value of the dollar and thus causes price inflation. It encourages deficits by reducing restraints on congressional spending. It encourages an increase in the current account deficit, the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and causes huge foreign indebtedness. It reflects a philosophy of instant gratification that says, live for the pleasures of today and have future generations pay the bills.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:5
Two final points to remember: whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue, and second an economic issue. Tax cuts should never be referred to as a “cost to government.” Tax cuts should be much bigger and come much sooner for everyone.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 56:6
Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
June 3, 2003

!TITLE:
The Flag Burning Amendment



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:2
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida that everybody here is patriotic and nobody’s patriotism should be challenged.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:3
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:4
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:5
Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:6
This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:7
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court- a poor national solution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:8
It is a ruling for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects everybody in every state, and that is what I am afraid we are doing here.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:9
The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does, it gives Congress the authority to write laws that will violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing but confusion and litigation can result.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:10
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe much good will come of it. A lot of good intentions are put into the effort, but I see no real benefit.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:11
It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment here?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:12
It seems that consistency is absent in this debate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:13
It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear much more about the First amendment. We have done it before, so therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:14
He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as not being correctly ratified.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:15
I think one of our problems has been that we have drifted away from the rule of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation of the laws.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:16
The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore we do violate the First amendment. Believe me, I have never read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you can lie and commit fraud under the First amendment. But the First amendment does say “Congress shall write no laws.”  That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the desecration of the flag.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:17
This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict. It will be the laws that will be written and then we will have to decide what desecration is and many other things.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:18
Earlier in the debate it was said that an individual may well be unpatriotic if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have voted against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money in the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really protect our country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:19
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:20
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:21
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there has been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:22
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall make no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: “Congress shall make no laws.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:23
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun – if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:24
Fortunately, Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:25
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:26
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:27
Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:28
“I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:29
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:30
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:31
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:32
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:33
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word “desecration,” which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have “No king but Christ” should be troubled by this amendment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
June 4, 2003

!TITLE:
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.   Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.  The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.  As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.  There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.  Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us.  That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.  Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.  Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:5
For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community?  By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:6
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:7
H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is.   By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 58:8
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.  I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
June 4, 2003

!TITLE:
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:1
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people.  I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.   The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action.  Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:2
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally.  I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts.   The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:3
Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.  Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle.  There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:4
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest.  Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.  Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said   “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty.   The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”   


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:5
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life.  In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property.  For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation.   This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act.  Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:8
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee.  To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:9
The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists !  This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law.  By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists- showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma.  While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states.  The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade.  Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:11
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do?  First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly.  We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them.  Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion.  State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it.  The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:12
If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here.  I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 59:13
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder’s vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system.   Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!TITLE:
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected

!DATE:
June 4, 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privately funded and privately constituted “Continuity of Government Commission” has recently proposed that, for the first time in our nation’s history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 60:2
The report of this so-called “Commission” makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as “the people’s House” by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly “coming” In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 60:3
Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the “commission” is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected “representatives” outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 60:4
Let’s face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a near-complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no “system” that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives under any circumstances, we will be on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 60:5
In the event that this “proposal” gets more serious and is given long-term attention, I will place in the record more detailed statements defending the notion of an all-elected House of Representatives, and explaining the fallacies and illogic found in this report. For now Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to go on record as among those who would fight to the last to preserve the principle of a House of Representatives consisting entirely of members elected by the people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Con. res. 177

!DATE:
4 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the members of our armed forces, who serve our country in the most difficult of circumstances. They endure terrible hardships in the course of their service: they are shipped thousands of miles across the globe for everything from border control duty to combat duty, enduring terribly long separations from their families and loved ones.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 61:2
I believe it is appropriate for Congress to recognize and commend this service to our country and I join with my colleagues to do so. I am concerned, however, that legislation like H. Con. Res. 177 seeks to use our support for the troops to advance a very political and controversial message. In addition to expressing sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in service to our country, for example, this legislation endorses the kind of open-ended occupation and nation-building that causes me great concern. It “recommits” the United States to “helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and vibrant democratic societies.” What this means is hundreds of thousands of American troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, engaged in nation-building activities that the military is neither trained nor suited for. It also means tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of American tax dollars being shipped abroad at a time when our national debt is reaching unprecedented levels.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 61:3
The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States — a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 61:4
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some would politicize an issue like this. If we are to commend our troops let us commend our troops. We should not be forced to endorse the enormously expensive and counter-productive practice of nation-building and preemptive military strikes to do so.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Continuity Of Government — Part 1

!DATE:
5 June 2003

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 41/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few concerns that I have regarding both the commission and the trend toward a constitutional amendment that might solve some of the problems that people anticipate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:2
I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD) that this is a very serious issue; and this is to me not just a casual appointment of a commission, but we are dealing with something that is, in a constitutional sense, rather profound because we are talking about amendments that are suggesting that our governors will appoint Members of Congress for the first time in our history. That should be done with a great deal of caution and clear understanding of what we are doing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:3
My concern, of course, with the commission is that we are moving rather rapidly in that direction. Hopefully, that is not the case. We had the commission report of the Continuity of Government Commission yesterday, and that was released, and then we had a unanimous consent agreement to bring this up, like we need to do this in a hurry.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:4
Ordinarily, if we deal with constitutional amendments, quite frequently we will have a constitutional amendment proposed, and then we will hold hearings on that particular amendment. I think we could handle it that way.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:5
But I have another concern about the urgent need and the assumption that the world ends if we are not here for a few days. There are times when we are not here like in August and a few months we take off at Christmas. Of course, we can be recalled, but the world does not end because we’re not here. In a way this need for a constitutional amendment to appoint congressmen is assuming that life cannot go on without us writing laws.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:6
I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time of crisis. He said, “think of all the emergency legislation that Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing expanded police powers. None of this could have happened”. But now as we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower approach no harm will come of it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 62:7
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Continuity Of Government — Part 2

!DATE:
5 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am pleased to hear what the gentleman has said, because there are some who see this just from the outside, seeing what we are doing here today as nothing more than a continuity of what was done yesterday.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 63:2
The gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) suggests he does not see it that way, and that gives me some reassurance, and I thank the gentleman.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People

!DATE:
5 June 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 5, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while may seem reasonable to establish a Joint Committee on the Continuity of Congress, I wish to bring to my colleagues’ attention my concerns relative to certain proposals regarding continuity of government, which would fundamentally alter the structure of our government in a way detrimental to republican liberty.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:2
In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal contained in “Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of Government Commission” which recommends that state governors appoint new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of the Founders’ intention that the House of Representatives be the part of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:3
Therefore, any action that abridges the people’s constitutional authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the people’s ability to control their government. Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:4
I would remind my colleagues that this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the people’s right to elect their representatives in order to ensure “continuity of government!”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:5
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, isn’t it in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible? Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the Executive Branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, I would ask my colleagues who is more likely to guard the people’s liberties, representatives chosen by, and accountable to, the people, or representatives hand-picked by the executive of their state?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:6
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to question the rush under which this bill is being brought to the floor. Until this morning, most members had no idea this bill would be considered today! The rules committee began its mark-up of the bill at 9:15 last night and by 9:31 the report was filed and the bill placed on the House Calendar. Then, after Congress had finished legislative business for the day and with only a handful of members on the floor, unanimous consent was obtained to consider this bill today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:7
It is always disturbing when bills dealing with important subjects are rushed through the House before members have adequate time to consider all the implications of the measure. I hope this does not set a precedent for shutting members of Congress out of the debate on this important issue.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 64:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while there is no harm in considering ideas for continuity of Congress, I hope my colleagues will reject any proposal that takes away the people’s right to elect their representatives in this chamber.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products

!DATE:
10 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure not because I wish to either support or oppose genetically-modified products. Clearly the production and consumption of these products is a matter for producers and consumers to decide for themselves.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 65:2
I oppose this bill because at its core it is government intervention — both in our own markets and in the affairs of foreign independent nations. Whether European governments decide to purchase American products should not be a matter for the U.S. Congress to decide. It is a matter for European governments and the citizens of European Union member countries. While it may be true that the European Union acts irrationally in blocking the import of genetically-modified products, the matter is one for European citizens to decide.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 65:3
Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat-managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands — at the behest of foreign governments — that the United States government raise taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 65:4
Genetically-modified agriculture products may well be the wave of the future. They may provide food for the world’s populations and contribute to the eradication of disease. That is something we certainly hope for and for which we will all applaud should it prove to be the case. But, again, this legislation is not about that. That is why I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act

!DATE:
10 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 66:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 66:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2143 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered

!DATE:
19 June 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 19, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, (1) After more than two months of searching, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq. While it is not impossible that something may be discovered, the fact that no WMD were used during the war and none have yet been discovered afterward indicates that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:2
(2) Assuming that no WMD are discovered in Iraq, it appears that Iraq may have actually been following the various UN resolutions that demanded the destruction of this weapons material.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:3
(3) Before the attack on Iraq, it was claimed that Iraq would destroy its oil wells. Though some explosives may have been found at some sites, it is clear that there was no coordinated Iraqi effort to demolish its oil facilities.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:4
(4) Before the attack, it was claimed that the Iraqi government would blow up dams to slow down invading troops. It did not do so.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:5
(5) Despite claims before the attack, there is no evidence of sustained, high-level contacts between the Iraqi government and the Al- Qaeda terrorist network.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:6
(6) US troops and defense planners were shocked that the Iraqi army simply melted away as the US attack pressed toward Baghdad. An army that cannot even defend its own territory is hardly a threat to its neighbors — or to the United States 6,000 miles away.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:7
(7) Considering the apparent lack of WMD and the total failure of the Iraqi army, claims that Iraq was a threat to United States national security appear to have been inaccurate. I publicly doubted such claims before the attack.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:8
(8) Ending Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq hasn’t solved much. Even with Saddam removed from power, we are told that that “regime change” as such is not enough: there must be a “process” of regime change where the end-goal is to remake Iraq and Iraqi society in our own image. This is otherwise known as “nation-building.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:9
(9) Chaos and lawlessness prevails across Iraq. There is no functioning police force other than American troops. Anger toward the United States occupying force continues to increase.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:10
(10) There is little chance of anything resembling democracy emerging in Iraq any time soon. Any real “democracy” that emerges will likely have a fundamentalist Islamic flavor and will be hostile to other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:11
(11) American soldiers are still getting killed on a regular basis. More organized forces seeking to kill American troops appear to be springing up across Iraq. Frustration with the American occupation of Iraq seems to be adding to the ranks of these organized anti-occupation forces, multiplying the threat to American troops.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:12
(12) There are more US troops being sent to Iraq now that major hostilities have ended. Troops that were supposed to be coming home have been told they must remain in Iraq because of the continued chaos and danger to American forces.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:13
(13) Though it was claimed before the US attack that proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be sufficient to rebuild the country, it is now obvious that this will not be the case. The brunt of the burden of Iraqi reconstruction will therefore fall on the American taxpayer. Much of the damage is the result of our own bombing of that country.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:14
(14) At a time when the US economy continues to falter, costs of occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have skyrocketed. Money spent rebuilding Iraq is money not available to help the US economy recover.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:15
(15) The credibility of the United States overseas is at an all time low.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:16
(16) The US intelligence community is being increasingly questioned over the quality of intelligence provided, while others suspect that the intelligence provided had been manipulated somewhere in the process to support a pre-determined policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:17
(17) Hatred toward the United States is on the increase in the Arab world, making terrorism more likely against us than before the attack — as the CIA predicted.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:18
(18) Nation-building — from creating a healthcare system to organizing trash pick-up to running the Iraqi media — has become our number one goal in Iraq.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:19
(19) Yet, supporters of this war are already planning for the next war — possibly against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba . . . or who knows where . . .


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 67:20
(20) In Washington, a foreign policy of noninterventionism, as advanced by the Founders and supported by the Constitution, is not considered a reasonable option, though millions of Americans would welcome it.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
June 25, 2003

!TITLE:
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:2
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons - as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:3
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:4
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty - as the 20 th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:5
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly “assemblies” in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 68:6
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a “No” vote on this unfortunate bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Con. Res. 45

!DATE:
25 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker: I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation, partly because it is simply a sense of Congress resolution. But I am concerned about this bill and the others like it we face with regularity on the floor of Congress. We all condemn violence against innocents, whether it is motivated by hatred, prejudice, greed, jealousy, or whatever else. But that is not what this legislation is really about. It is about the Congress of the United States presuming to know — and to legislate on — the affairs of European countries. First, this is the United States Congress. We have no Constitutional authority to pass legislation affecting foreign countries. Second, when we get involved in matters such as this we usually get it wrong. H. Con. Res. 45 is an example of us getting it wrong on both fronts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 69:2
This legislation refers to the rise of anti- Semitism in Europe as if it is a purely homegrown phenomenon, as if native residents of European countries are suddenly committing violent crimes against Jews. But I think we are only getting part of the story here. What is absent from the legislation is mention of the wellreported fact that much of the anti-Jewish violence in Europe is perpetrated by recent immigrants from Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa. Reporting on a firebombing of a Synagogue in Marseille, France, for example, the New York Times quotes the longtime president of that region’s Jewish Council, Charles Haddad, as saying, “This is not anti- Semitic violence; it’s the Middle East conflict that’s playing out here.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 69:3
Therefore, part of the problem in many European countries is the massive immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, where new residents bring their hatreds and prejudices with them. Those European politicians who recognize this growing problem — there are now 600,000 Jews in France and five million Muslims — are denounced as racist and worse. While I do not oppose immigration, it must be admitted that massive immigration from vastly different cultures brings a myriad of potential problems and conflicts. These are complicated issues for we in Congress to deal with here in the United States. Yes, prejudice and hatred are evil and must be opposed, but it is absurd for us to try to solve these problems in countries overseas.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Keep Out Of Middle East Conflicts

!DATE:
25 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 70:2
When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize the people affected and end up no closer to peace than when we started. This bill makes reference to the need to have solidarity with Israel. Elsewhere people say we should have solidarity with the Palestinians and the Arabs. So, as I have said before when bills such as this are on the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti- Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 70:3
But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene in the Middle East, that there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that, unfortunately.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 70:4
As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a policy American interests first, costs must less money, and is in keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by our Founders.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 70:5
I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their differences, but because whether they decide or not is not our business I urge a no vote on this resolution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs

!DATE:
26 June 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 1 nor the alternative allows seniors the ability to control their own health care. Both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine which prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. Under both plans, federal spending and control over health care will rise dramatically. The only difference is that the alternative puts seniors under the total control of the federal bureaucracy, while H.R. 1 shares this power with “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies. No wonder supporters of nationalized health care are celebrating the greatest expansion of federal control over health care since the Great Society.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 1 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 1 contains several good provisions addressing the congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempts to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 1 provides seniors a choice between staying in traditionally Medicare or joining an HMO or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). No matter which option the senior selects, choices about which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors will be made by a public or private sector bureaucrat. Furthermore, the bureaucrats will have poor to determine the aggregate prices charged to the plans. Being forced to choose between types of bureaucrats is not choice.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:4
Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as Medicare and/or HMO bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in Medicare), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicarecovered pharmaceuticals. I remind may colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services that differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:5
This bill is even more pernicious when one realizes that this plan provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plans. In what is likely to be a futile effort to prevent this from happening, H.R. 1 extends federal subsidies to private insurers to bribe them to keep providing private drug coverage to senior citizens. However, the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that nearly 40 percent of private plans that currently provide prescription drug coverage to seniors will stop providing such coverage if this plan is enacted. This number is certain to skyrocket once the pharmaceutical companies begin passing on any losses caused by Medicare price controls to private plans.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:6
Furthermore, these private plans will be subject to government regulations. Thus, even seniors who are able to maintain their private coverage will fall under federal control. Thus, H.R. 1 will reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:7
Setting up a system where by many of those currently receiving private coverage are hired into the government program exacerbates one of the major problems with this bill: it hastens the bankruptcy of the Medicare program and the federal government. According to Medicare Trustee, and professor of economics at Texas A&M University, Tom Saving, the costs of this bill could eventually amount to two-thirds of the current public-held debt of $3.8 trillion! Of course, estimates such as this often widely underestimate the costs of government programs. For example, in 1965, the government estimate that the Medicare Part B hospitalization program would cost $9 billion in 1990, but Medicare Part B costs $66 billion in 1990!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:8
This new spending comes on top of recent increases in spending for “homeland security,” foreign aid, federal education programs, and new welfare initiatives, such as those transforming churches into agents of the welfare state. In addition we have launched a seemingly endless program of global reconstruction to spread “democratic capitalism.” The need to limit spending is never seriously discussed: it is simply assumed that Congress can spend whatever it wants and rely on the Federal Reserve to bail us out of trouble. This is a prescription for disaster.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:9
At the least, we should be debating whether to spend on warfare or welfare and choosing between corporate welfare and welfare for the poor instead of simply increasing spending on every program. While I would much rather spend federal monies on prescription drugs then another unconstitutional war, increasing spending on any program without corresponding spending reductions endangers our nation’s economic future.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:10
Congress further exacerbates the fiscal problems created by this bill by failing to take any steps to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies, which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a governmentgranted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-Approved pharmaceuticals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:11
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexico border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:12
Supporters of H.R. 1 claim that this bill does liberalize the rules governing the importation of prescription drugs. However, H.R. 1’s importation provision allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to arbitrarily restrict the ability of American consumers to import prescription drugs — and HHS Secretary Thompson has already gone on record as determined to do all he can to block a free trade in pharmaceuticals! Thus, the importation language in H.R. 1 is a smokescreen designed to fool the gullible into thinking Congress is acting to create a free market in pharmaceuticals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:13
The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 1. There are only two differences between the two: First, under the alternative, seniors will not be able to choice to have a federally subsidized HMO bureaucrat deny them their choice of prescription drugs; instead, seniors will have to accept the control of bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Second, the alternative is even more fiscally irresponsible than H.R. 1.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:14
Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better than a “choice” between whether a private or a public sector bureaucrat will control their health care. Meaningful prescription drug legislation should be based on the principles of maximum choice and flexibility for senior citizens. For example, my H.R. 1617 provides seniors the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription drugs in a manner that increases seniors’ control over their own health care.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:15
H.R. 1617 removes the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program. Medicare MSAs consist of a special saving account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Unlike the plans contained in H.R. 4504, and the Democratic alternative, Medicare MSAs allow seniors to use Medicare funds to obtain the prescription drugs that fit their unique needs. Medicare MSAs also allow seniors to use Medicare funds for other services not available under traditional Medicare, such as mammograms.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:16
Medicare MSAs will also ensure that seniors have access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:17
There are claims that this bill provides seniors access to MSAs. It is true that this bill lifts the numerical caps on Medicare MSAs; however, it also imposes price controls and bureaucratic requirements on MSA programs. Thus, the MSAs contained in this bill do nothing to free seniors and health care providers from third party control of health care decisions!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:18
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:19
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the procedure under which this will was brought before the House. Last week, the committees with jurisdiction passed two separate, but similar Medicare prescription drug bills. In the middle of last night, the two bills were merged to produce H.R. 1. The bills reported out of Committee were each less than 400 pages, yet the bill we are voting on today is 692 pages. So in the middle of the night, the bill mysteriously doubled in size! Once again, members are asked to vote on a significant piece of legislation with far reaching effects on the American people without having had the chance to read, study, or even see major portions of the bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 71:20
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 1 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over which prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 1 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors’ prescription drugs, whereas the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors which prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command- and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation that gives all seniors access to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

!TITLE:
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule

!DATE:
June 30, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS




!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:1
The COGC Proposal
The “Continuity of Government Commission” (COGC), spearheaded by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, recently issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack.  Specifically, COGC advocates a constitutional amendment calling for the appointment of individuals to the House of Representatives to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history.  An examination of the proposal reveals that it is both unnecessary and dangerous.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:2
Note that COGC is “self-commissioned,” its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body.   The biographies of the commissioners demonstrate that COGC is made up mostly of professional lobbyists. Of course COGC is well-intentioned, but the nation should know exactly who is trying to substitute their wisdom for that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other framers of the Constitution.  I think most Americans would prefer that proposals to amend the Constitution come from elected lawmakers or grassroots efforts, not from think tanks and lobbyists.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:3
One reading the COGC proposal cannot help but sense the familiar Washington conceit at work, a conceit that sees America as totally dependent on the workings of Capitol Hill.  It is simply unthinkable to many in Washington that the American people might survive a period in which Congress did not pass any new laws.   But the truth is that the federal state is not America.   The American people have always been remarkably resilient in the face of emergencies, and individual states are far more equipped to deal with emergencies and fill congressional vacancies than COGC imagines.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:4
COGC is Unnecessary
Every generation seems to labor under the delusion that it lives in the most dangerous and turbulent time in human history.   COGC certainly proves this point.  Its proposal provides doomsday scenarios designed to make us believe that the threat of modern terrorism poses a much greater risk to our government institutions than ever existed in the past.  Yet is Congress really more vulnerable than it was at the height of the Cold War, when a single Soviet missile could have destroyed Washington? Surely Congress faced greater danger in 1814, when the British army actually invaded Washington, routed the city, and burned down the White House!  Somehow the republic survived those much more perilous times without a constitutional amendment calling for the emergency appointment of Representatives.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:5
The scenarios offered by the commission, while theoretically possible, are highly unlikely to disable Congress.   Remember, a majority of members assemble together in one place only rarely; even during votes most members are not on the floor together at the same time   Inauguration ceremonies and State of the Union addresses often bring together a majority of members in the same place, but simple precautions could be taken to keep a sufficient number away from such events.  Even a direct terrorist attack on the Pentagon failed to disrupt the operation of the Department of Defense.  The COGC proposal exaggerates the likelihood that a terrorist strike on Washington would incapacitate the House of Representatives, and exaggeration is a bad reason to amend the Constitution. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:6
Existing Constitutional Provisions are Adequate
It is important to understand that the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.   Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency.  As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC.  Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.   


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:7
COGC posits that states could not hold special elections quickly enough after a terrorist act to guarantee the functioning of Congress.  But even COGC reports that the average length of House vacancies, following the death of a member until the swearing in of a successor after a special election, is only 126 days.  Certainly this period could be shortened given the urgency created by a terrorist attack.  We should not amend the Constitution simply to avoid having a reduced congressional body for a month or two.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:8
In fact, Congress often goes months without passing significant legislation, and takes long breaks in August and December.   If anything, legislation passed in the aftermath of a terrorist event is likely to be based on emotion, not reason.  The terrible Patriot Act, passed only one month after September 11 th by a credulous Congress, is evidence of this.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:9
Also, advances in technology can be used to reduce the risk of a disruption in congressional continuity following an emergency.   Members already carry Blackberry devices to maintain communications even if cut off from their offices. Similar technology can be used to allow remote electronic voting by members.  Congress should focus on contingency plans that utilize technology, not a constitutional amendment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:10
States have a wide variety of electronic and telephonic technology at their disposal to speed up the process of special elections.  Consider that popular television shows hold votes that poll millions of Americans in a single night!  Yet COGC ignores alternatives to standard voting and incorrectly assumes that states will be in disarray and unable to hold elections for months.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:11
COGC is Dangerous because the House Must Be Elected
At its heart, the COGC proposal is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives.  The House must be elected.  Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:12
The problems with appointment of “representatives” are obvious.  COGC calls for a general constitutional amendment that gives Congress wide power to make rules for filling vacancies “in the event that a substantial number of members are killed or incapacitated.”  Such an amendment would be unavoidably vague, open to broad interpretation and abuse.  In defining terms like “vacancy,” “substantial,” and “incapacitated,” Congress or the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent for a more elastic constitutional framework.  Members of Congress simply cannot appoint their colleagues; the conflict of interest is glaring. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:13
Alternate proposals allowing state governors to appoint representatives from a list of successors nominated by members are no better.  The House of Representatives represents the people, not the states.  Single states often exhibit wide variations in political makeup even among voters of the same party.  Appointment by governors, even though the successors represent the dead member’s party choice, could change the ideological composition of Congress contrary to the will of the people.  Furthermore, voters choose an individual candidate, not a panel.  They should not be required to consider the qualifications of a candidate’s potential successors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:14
COGC focuses on government legitimacy, arguing that a House of Representatives with only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public.  In fact the opposite is true: appointed “representatives” will never be seen as legitimate and in fact would not be legitimate.  Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected by voters in the member’s district.   Madison states in Federalist 52 that “The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.”  The very legitimacy of the House of Representatives is based on its constitutional status as the most directly accountable federal body.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:15
The House passes numerous laws, often by voice vote, with very few members present.  The legitimacy of those laws is not called into question.  Even a House made up of only five elected members would have more legitimacy, as the living continuation of the only elected entity in government, than a House composed of five surviving members and 430 appointees.  Furthermore, even a decimated House membership would have to pass legislation with the concurrence of the Senate, which could be restored to full strength immediately by state governors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:16
Consider a scenario COGC forgot to mention. Imagine a terrorist strike kills a majority of members of the House of Representatives.  200 members survive, and 235 are appointed by state governors on a “temporary basis.”  This new body considers a bill that drastically increases taxes to pay for emergency measures, while suspending civil liberties and imposing martial law.   The bill passes, with 195 elected members opposed and all 235 appointed members in favor.  Only 5 elected members support the measure.  Would the electorate consider this legislation legitimate?  Hardly.  Yet this is the type of outcome we must expect under the COGC proposal.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 72:17
Conclusion
To quote Professor Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School: “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.”   We must not allow the understandable fears and passions engendered by the events of September 11 th to compel a rushed and grievous injury to our system of government.  The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis; it is precisely during such times we should hold to it most dearly.  Rather than amending the Constitution, Congress should be meeting to discuss how to preserve our existing institutions- including an elected House- in the event of a terrorist attack.  The Constitution already provides us with the framework, while technology gives states the ability organize elections quickly.  The COGC proposal not only makes a mountain out of a molehill, but also acutely threatens the delicate balance of federal power established in the Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Neo – CONNED !

!DATE:
July 10, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:1
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted.  The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:2
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:3
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government.  However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:4
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:5
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:6
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:7
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:8
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:9
The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:10
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:11
That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:12
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:13
Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:14
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:15
In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:16
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:17
Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:18
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:19
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:20
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:21
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:22
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:23
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:24
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:25
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli . This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:26
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:27
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:



      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:28
   1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:29
   2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:30
   3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:31
   4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:32
   5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:33
   6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:34
   7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:35
   8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:36
   9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:37
  10.  They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:38
  11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:39
  12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:40
  13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.  Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:41
  14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:42
  15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:43
  16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.


      !CITE:
      2003 Ron Paul 73:44
  17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.




!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:45
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:46
It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , and the New York Post , their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:47
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:48
The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:49
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post , and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:50
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:51
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:52
It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:53
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:54
There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:55
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.   Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:56
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters , he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must  destroy them to advance our historic mission.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:57
If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:58
In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership , Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:59
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:60
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:61
Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington?  The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is:  “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:62
Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:63
Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:64
“Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:65
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:66
Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:67
Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:68
“Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:69
It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:70
            I ’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:71
He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:72
Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:73
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:74
…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:75
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event.  The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:76
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:77
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:78
The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:79
We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:80
There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are  championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:81
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:82
Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:83
The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:84
Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:85
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:86
I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get  fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:87
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:88
If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:89
  The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:90
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:91
We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:92
One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:93
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:94
Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 73:95
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn

!DATE:
10 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1

!DATE:
15 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL:

Page 32, after line 3, insert the following

(and amend the table of contents accordingly):

Subtitle C — Limitations

SEC. 131. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THIS ACT FOR ANY UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS OR ANY AFFILIATED AGENCY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed (Mr. HYDE) each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:3
Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes away the funding from the United Nations as well as any affiliated U.N. agency.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:4
Mr. Chairman, last year we spent $3.25 billion on the U.N. as well as the other agencies at the U.N. I do not believe that is money worthwhile. It is not a good investment. I do not think the money is spent well. The amendment, as I said, defunds the United Nations as well as its agencies. We pay 21 percent of the budget, and on peacekeeping missions we pay over 27 percent. I think this is essentially wasted money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:5
We also lose our sovereignty when we look to the U.N. for guidance. When we declared war or when we went to war without declaration of war last fall, we had a resolution on the floor which cited the U.N. 23 different times. I do not believe we should go to war under U.N. resolutions, and we have essentially been in Iraq under U.N. resolution because in the early 1990s it was under U.N. resolution that we went to war. The old-fashioned way of going to war was a declaration of war.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:6
We went into Korea over 50 years ago under a U.N. resolution. We are still in Korea. We still have serious problems in Korea. There is still a confrontation that we have with the government of North Korea. I do not see where it is to our benefit, I do not see where it is a benefit to world peace to rely on the United Nations. Even though we rely on the United Nations for authority, when we want the United Nations to go along with our policy as our President asked earlier this year, it was refused. So in many ways we have a policy that does not make a whole lot of sense. We first rely on the United Nations, spend a lot of money, then they do not do our bidding.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:7
It gets to be almost a joke around the world about some of the things the U.N. does. When you think about the Commission of Human Rights and who is appointed as the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights, nobody else other than Libya. And before the war it was actually Iraq who was supposed to chair the Disarmament Commission.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 75:8
So this I think in many ways reflects the ineptness of the United Nations and its inability to pursue any policy that is in our interest. So it is for this reason, whether it is rejoining UNESCO and throwing more money down another on another useless program, we here are spending a lot of money giving up our sovereignty. Much of this money should be spent here at home.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yields To Mr. Bartlett

!DATE:
15 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BARTLETT).

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2

!DATE:
15 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 11/2 minutes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again urge a yes vote on this amendment to limit the funding to the United Nations and to all its agencies.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:3
The gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS) mentioned that there were some programs under the United Nations which were sort of “feel-good” programs, social welfare programs, and I think I would grant that some of these programs have had some benefit. That in itself is not enough for me to endorse the concept of international welfare through the United Nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:4
However, too often I think they leave doing these programs that are designed to help people who are truly suffering versus getting involved with what we call peacekeeping missions. The United Nations are not allowed to declare war. They never go to war, and yet too often we get involved in war. That is why they were called peacekeepers in Korea. That is why it is a peacekeeping mission when we go to Iraq. But, still, the armies are raised, and young men are called off, and people are killed on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I say that the United Nations has tended to take away the responsibilities of this Congress to make these very, very important decisions.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:5
I believe in many ways that by joining the United Nations we have allowed our Constitution to be amended merely by U.N. vote. If the U.N. votes and says something and we go along with that, we do that by majority vote here in the Congress. Where if we look to the Constitution for the authorities that we are allowed to do and what we are not permitted to do, we look to article I, section 8; and what the U.N. is doing is not permissible under the article.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 77:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”

!DATE:
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect American liberty, privacy and economic wellbeing by introducing legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a “carry tax.” A carry tax is a tax imposed on Americans that requires them to pay a tax whenever they make a bank deposit. The amount of the tax is based on how long their money has been in circulation. Hard as it may be to believe, some in the Federal Government have actually considered imposing this tax on American citizens. Since this bill punishes those who rely on cash for the majority of their economic transactions, and since lower income Americans tend to rely on cash for their economic transactions, this is a highly regressive tax plan. Furthermore, since the plan is designed to lower interest rates, it will negatively impact those who rely on investment income for a significant part of their income. Thus, the carry tax will lower the income of millions of senior citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 78:2
Proposals to punish people if their economic behavior meets with the disapproval of government officials form the foundation of the type of central planning which caused so much misery in the last century. The carry tax proposal is obviously incompatible with a free market. This proposal is also a major threat to personal and financial privacy and thus individual liberty. In order to enforce the carry tax, the government would need a means of monitoring how long each piece of currency has been in circulation and how many hands it passed through before coming into the possession of the person on whom the tax is assessed. Thus, enforcing this tax would also give the government the power to monitor the transactions of individual Americans. The Federal Government should not abuse the authority granted it by our current monetary system and legal tender laws as a backdoor means of prying into the private economic transactions of American citizens. That is why my legislation also forbids the Federal Government from placing any information storage capacity on any Federal Reserve notes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 78:3
The carry tax was proposed as a measure to counteract the perceived risk of deflation. Yet, the problems this carry tax is intended to solve are caused by our government’s boomand- bust monetary policy. Any perceived deflation in the American economy is the result of the end of the inflationary period of the nineties that created the stock market bubble. When the bubble burst, there was the inevitable process of liquidating bad investments caused by the misallocation of credit as a result of the Federal Reserve monetary policy. In fact, this liquidation is necessary for the economy to recover from the economic misallocations caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 78:4
Unfortunately, rather than finally putting an end to the boom-and-bust cycle, most in Washington are preparing to resume the cycle by calling on the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to flood the economy with new money. If Congress is not going to stabilize the American economy by reforming our unstable monetary policy, it should at least refrain from using this government failure as an excuse to further restrict the American people’s liberty through an odious carry tax. I therefore hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act

!DATE:
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold. I also ask for unanimous consent to insert into the RECORD articles by Kelly Patricia O Meara of Insight magazine detailing the evidence supporting allegations that the United States Government has manipulated the price of gold over the past decade and the harm such manipulation caused American investors, taxpayers, consumers, and workers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:3
By artificially deflating the price of gold, federal intervention in the gold market can reduce the values of private gold holdings, adversely affecting millions of investors. These investors rely on their gold holdings to protect them from the effects of our misguided fiat currency system. Federal dealings in gold can also adversely affect those countries with large gold mines, many of which are currently ravished by extreme poverty. Mr. Speaker, restoring a vibrant gold market could do more than any foreign aid program to restore economic growth to those areas.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, as detailed in the attached article. GATA alleges that the Treasury, operating through the Exchange- Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, has been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.”.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:6
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:7
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role V in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:8
[From Insight Magazine, July 8, 2003]
PANIC IS NEAR IF “THE GOLD IS GONE”
(By Kelly Patricia O Meara)
Gold. It’s been called a barbarous relic, and those who focus on its historic role as a standard of value frequently are labeled “lunatic fringe.” Given the recent highs in the gold market, it looks like the crazies have been having a hell of a year. With the stock market taking its third yearly loss, gold returned nearly 30 percent to investors, moving from $255 an ounce to six-year highs of $380.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:9
Just about every analyst and “expert” on Wall Street willing to mention any of this has been quick to explain that the increase in the price of gold is due to impending war with Iraq. But hard-money analysts are arguing that should the United States go to war it will be of very little consequence to the price of gold — a momentary blip — because gold is a commodity and its price a matter of supply and demand.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:10
The “lunatic fringe” long has argued that the price of gold was being manipulated by a “gold cartel” involving J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, but that the manipulation had been sufficiently exposed to require that it be abandoned, producing the steady upward increase in the price of the shiny, yellow metal.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:11
In fact the “gold bugs,” as they’re known, are so sure of their research that not only do they believe the price of gold will continue to climb, but many are expecting to see prices of $800 to $1,000 an ounce. Until recently, most in the gold and financial worlds scoffed at such a prediction, but last month the Bank of Portugal made an announcement that shocked those who credit official gold-reserve data and added fuel to the contention of the gold bugs that the “gold-cartel” manipulation is in meltdown.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:12
What the Bank of Portugal revealed in its 2001 annual report is that 433 tonnes [metric tons] of gold — some 70 percent of its gold reserve — either have been lent or swapped into the market. According to Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), a nonprofit organization that researches and studies the gold market and reports its findings at www.LeMetropoleCafe.com: “This gold is gone — and it lends support to our years of research that the central banks do not have the 32,000 tonnes of gold in reserve that they claim. The big question is: How many other central banks are in the same predicament as the Portuguese?”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:13
Murphy explains: “The essence of the rigging of the gold market is that the bullion banks borrowed central-bank gold from various vaults and flooded the market with supply, keeping the price down. The GATA camp has uncovered information that shows that around 15,000 to 16,000 tonnes of gold have left the central banks, leaving the centralbank reserves with about half of what is officially reported.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:14
This is why those who follow such arcana are predicting an explosion in the price of gold. According to Murphy, “The gold establishment says that the gold loans from the central banks are only 4,600 to 5,000 tonnes,” but his information is that these loans are more than three times that number, which means “they’re running out of physical gold to continue the scheme.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:15
According to Murphy, “The cartel has been able to get away with lying about the amount of gold in reserve because the International Monetary Fund [IMF] is the Arthur Andersen of the gold world.” He has provided to Insight documents from central banks confirming that the IMF instructed them to count both lent and swapped gold as a reserve. “In other words, the IMF told the central banks to deceive the investment and gold world[s]. Once this gold is lent [or] swapped, it’s gone until such time as it can be repurchased. And with the skyrocketing price of gold we’re now seeing, it would be incredibly expensive, let alone nearly physically impossible, to get it back.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:16
What is important to understand, says Murphy, “is that there is a mine and scrap supply deficit of 1,500 tonnes, which is an enormous deficit when yearly mine supply is only 2,500 tonnes and going down. On top of that, there are these under-reported gold loans and other derivatives that are on the short side. There is no way to pay this gold back to the central banks without the price of gold going up hundreds of dollars per ounce. So the peasants and women of the world will have to sell their jewelry at say $800 an ounce to bail out these short positions or someone is going to have to tell the world that they don’t have the gold that they have reported,” shaking the world’s financial system to its core.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:17
The gold bugs appear to be basing their identification of a world gold shortage on industry data, much of which has been summarized in two papers prepared by four different gold analysts at different times using separate methods. The first paper was written by governmental investment adviser Frank Veneroso and his associate, mining analyst Declan Costelloe. Titled Gold Derivatives, Gold Lending: Official Management of the Gold Price and the Current State of the Gold Market, it was presented at the 2002 International Gold Symposium in Lima, Peru, and estimates the gold deficit of the central banks at between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes. The second paper, Gold Derivatives: Moving Towards Checkmate, by Mike Bolser, a retired businessman, and Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, estimates the alleged shortage of central-bank gold at between 15,000 and 16,000 tonnes — nearly a decade’s worth of mine production.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:18
George Milling-Stanley, manager of goldmarket analysis for the World Gold Council (WGC), a private organization made up of leading gold-mining companies that promotes the acquisition and retention of gold, is aware of these papers and shortage numbers but tells Insight that “there are no official [gold-reserve] reports.” That is, “The central banks are under no obligation to report what they lend into the market, what they place on deposit and what they do with their swaps, so there’s a conventional-wisdom view, and a couple of different bodies have done some fairly serious research in[to] this and have come up with a figure [of] around 4,500 to 5,000 tonnes.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:19
Stanley’s estimate is based on data provided by so-called “serious” researchers, including Londonbased Gold Fields Mineral Services (GFMS), one of the world’s foremost precious-metals consultants, and a report titled Gold Derivatives: The Market View, commissioned by the WGC to London-based Virtual Metals Consultancy. While these two groups appear to be the research choice of the official gold world, there are in fact no “official” figures, and both studies, like the Veneroso/Costelloe and Bolser/Howe reports, are based on interviews, data analysis and other research generally available to the industry.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:20
Those who believe the central banks to have misrepresented their actual gold holdings place much of the blame for the lack of transparency on the shoulders of the IMF, which presents itself as being responsible for ensuring the stability of the international financial system. Although the IMF would not respond to questions about its gold-loan/ swap requirements, what information has been made public appears to support GATA’s understanding of how central-bank reserves are reported.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:21
For example, in October 2001 the IMF responded to questions posed by GATA by saying it is not correct that the IMF insists members record swapped gold as an asset when a legal change in ownership has occurred. According to this response, “The IMF in fact recommends that swapped gold be excluded from reserve assets.” Nonetheless, says GATA, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case, citing as an example the Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:22
A footnote on the Website of the Central Bank of the Philippines (www.bsp.gov.ph) in fact directly contradicts the IMF’s claim: “Beginning January 2000, in compliance with the requirements of the IMF’s reserves and foreign-currency-liquidity template under the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), gold swaps undertaken by the BSP with noncentral banks shall be treated as collateralized loans. Thus gold under the swap arrangement remains to be part of reserves, and a liability is deemed incurred corresponding to the proceeds of the swap.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:23
The European Central Bank (ECB) also made it clear that the IMF policy is to include swaps and loans as reserves. The ECB responded to GATA: “Following the recommendations set out in the IMF operational guidelines of the ’Data Template on International Reserve and Foreign Currency Liquidity,’ which were developed in 1999, all reversible gold transactions, including gold swaps, are recorded as collateralized loans in balance of payments and international investment- position statistics. This treatment implies that the gold account would remain unchanged on the balance sheet.” The Bank of Finland and the Bank of Portugal also confirmed in writing that the swapped gold remains a reserve asset under IMF regulations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:24
Although the WGC’s Stanley stands by the data provided by the industry’s “serious” researchers, he insists he cannot say for certain that the numbers are accurate. “There is no requirement on any country to tell the IMF how much gold it owns,” says Stanley. “The requirement is to tell the IMF how much gold it has decided to place in its official reserves. Nobody knows whether that is the total of what they own or not. Obviously they can’t report more than what they own, but they can certainly report less if they chose to. That gold may have been lent out, but is nevertheless still owed to them. It’s a bit like any company reporting a cash position. It will report cash on hand and cash due — money owed by other people. I’m not saying this is ideal, but this is how it works.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:25
John Embry, the manager of last year’s best-performing North American gold fund and manager of the Royal Precious Metals Fund for the Royal Bank of Canada, says he is putting his and his clients’ money on the “lunatic fringe” in this dispute: “I’ve examined all the evidence gathered by GATA and everyone else, and I think these guys are anything but lunatics. They’ve done their homework and have unearthed a lot of interesting stuff. The problem, though, is that the market is sufficiently opaque that there is really no way to know who is right and who is wrong.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:26
“The fact is,” continues Embry, “a lot of this stuff is based on estimations. I do however believe that, based on the evidence dug up by Veneroso and Howe, they are presenting equally if not more credible numbers than the other side. I find the campaign to undermine their credence simply bizarre. I think these guys [GATA] are right and that the number put out by Gold Fields Mineral Services as the amount of gold loaned out by the central banks is definitely wrong. Now, whether it’s as much as 15,000 is up for interpretation. The recent release by the Bank of Portugal is important. When a central bank has 70 percent of its gold loaned or swapped, I don’t think it is operating independently, and I suspect there are an awful lot of them that have loaned out much more than has been reported.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:27
Embry says, “I’ve made a fortune for my clients investing in gold and gold stocks because I have operated on the premise that the Veneroso/Howe reports are right — that gold was significantly undervalued in the daily quote and that it was going a lot higher. The circumstantial evidence, and I bet my clients’ money on it, was very much in favor of the guys who said a great deal more central-bank gold had entered the market and driven the price down far too low. GATA has had this story from day one. I think that they’re right and that officialdom doesn’t want this exposed. GATA is willing to have a public debate but the gold world won’t debate. I think there is a tacit admission of anyone who has an IQ above that of a grapefruit that Veneroso and Howe have a pretty good point. I’m an analyst who has looked at both sides of the issue and I bet my money on GATA. So far they’ve been right.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 79:28
Whether the gold bugs are right about the reasons for the meteoric rise in the price of gold is uncertain, but, according to GATA’s Murphy: “It’s all the more reason to have the central banks come clean about the actual amount of gold that physically exists in their reserves. Either way, the price of gold will continue to rise because, as we already know and others are discovering, the gold is gone.”

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act

!DATE:
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Foreign Aid Limitation Act. This bill limits the ability of the Executive Branch to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to distribute largesse to foreign countries without the approval of Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 80:2
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from using the ESF to make a loan or extend credit to any foreign government or entity for an amount exceeding $250,000,000. The bill also forbids the ESF from being used to finance a loan or to extend credit, to any foreign government or entity for a period exceeding 60 days. The 60-day limitation can be waived if the President certifies in writing to the Chair and ranking members of the relevant House and Senate Committees that the United States obtained an assured source of repayment before making the loan or extending the credit. Finally, the bill prohibits the use of the ESF to make loans or extend credit in an amount exceeding $1,000,000,000 to a foreign government or entity without express statutory authorization. This provision can also be waived if the President certifies in writing to the heads of the relevant committees that the loan is necessary to address a financial crisis threatening the United States and Congress does not pass a joint resolution disapproving the loan or credit.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 80:3
Mr. Speaker, these provisions all passed Congress as “riders” on appropriations bills in the 1990s. However, they have not been included in the appropriations bills for the past several years. It is long past time for Congress to make these provisions permanent. Over the past several years there has been great controversy over the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This fund was created in the 1930s to help stabilize the exchange value of the dollar, yet it has mutated into a “slush fund” used by the executive branch to funnel money to foreign governments and even foreign companies free of congressional oversight.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 80:4
In particular, there was great controversy over the Clinton administration’s use of the ESF to finance the Mexican bailout without Congressional approval in 1995. Today, there is a similar controversy over the use of the ESF in the Iraq rebuilding process. Ensuring the fund is only used for narrow purposes will help end the controversy by bringing greater transparency to the disbursement of foreign aid. Even supporters of a vigorous foreign aid program should support restoring Congress’ rightful role as appropriator and overseer of foreign aid funds.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 80:5
Mr. Speaker, it long past time for Congress to begin reasserting its constitutional role in the appropriation of funds for foreign aid programs. For too long, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has allowed the executive branch to commit the American taxpayer to supporting foreign governments without even consulting with Congress. I hope all my colleagues will join my efforts to end this practice by cosponsoring my Foreign Aid Limitation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act

!DATE:
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice of Act. This act ensures that participation in the Medicare program is completely voluntary. I also ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter sent to my office from a citizen who is trying to receive Social Security benefits without being forced to enroll in Medicare Part A, along with a letter from the Social Security Administration admitting that seniors who do not enroll in Medicare Part A are denied Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:2
When Medicare was first established, seniors were promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior’s right to seek out other forms of medical insurance. However, today, the Social Security Administration refuses to give seniors Social Security benefits unless they enroll in Medicare Part A.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:3
This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system, it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:4
At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:5
Seniors may wish to refuse Medicare for a variety of reasons. Some seniors may wish to continue making their own health care decisions, rather than have those decisions made for them by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Other seniors may have a favorite physician who is one of the growing number of doctors who have been driven out of the Medicare program by CMS’s micromanagement of their practices and below-cost reimbursements.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:6
Forcing seniors into any government program as a precondition of receiving their promised Social Security benefits both violates the promise of Social Security and infringes on the freedom of seniors who do not wish to participate in Medicare. As the author of the submitted letter says, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice Act.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:7
Congressman RON PAUL
U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I am writing to inform you about a structural problem in Medicare of which you may he unaware and that I believe must be remedied, all the more so now that there are rumors that Medicare, Part A, might be combined with Medicare, Part B.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:8
In brief; the problem to which I refer involves the requirement that a Medicare eligible individual enroll in Medicare, Part A as a condition of receiving Social Security benefits to which he or she is entitled. In fact, the Social Security Administration has combined the enrollment forms for the two programs, so that an application for Social Security benefits to which one is entitled automatically entails enrollment in Medicare, Part A.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:9
I discovered this in June 2001 when I went with my husband to apply for my Social Security benefits. I made it quite clear that I would not enroll in Medicare, Part A due to my objections to certain aspects of this program. (The objectionable aspects include invasion of privacy and limitation of medical choice.) In response I was told that I then could not receive the Social Security benefits to which I am otherwie entitled.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:10
Further communication with CMS by myself and by the office of Senator Kennedy on my behalf confirmed that CMS and the Social Security Administration take the position that “the Medicare program, Part A . . . [is] a benefit completely linked to the monthly social security benefit for those age 65 or older.” Indeed I was sent a copy of federal regulation 404.640 (entitled “Withdrawal of an application”), which states that anyone who enrolls in Medicare, Part A and then decides later to withdraw will have to return all benefits received. (Another document I received states that this includes both medical benefits and social security benefits.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:11
Upon receipt of a copy of the letter, dated October 12, 2001, sent to Senator Kennedy regarding my complaint. I followed that letter’s suggestion that I make an attempt to file “a restricted application for Social Security benefits.” This I did in a letter, dated May 15, 2002, to the regional commissioner for Social Security, Manual Vaz.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:12
The response to my letter to Mr. Vaz came from the local (Waltham) Social Security office. In that letter, dated May 29, 2002. I was told that it was impossible to make a restricted application, i.e., an “application for cash social security retirement benefits only.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:13
Thus I was left with no recourse. I could not appeal a denial of my “restricted” application, because I was not even permitted to make the application. Short of an expensive lawsuit or an Act of Congress, there appears to be no remedy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:14
This is no trivial matter for me. I have now lost two years of Social Security benefits. It is not clear when or if I will ever receive these benefits. All those with whom I have discussed this problem, irrespective of their political persuasion, have been shocked to hear about these regulations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:15
I believe that I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed. I ask that you take steps to remedy this situation. I shall be happy to supply documentation regarding the facts outlined above, it you request it. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,_______.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:16
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
DEAR MS. :

Enclosed please find the regulations which state that there is no application for cash social security retirement benefits only. If you file for cash benefits you MUST file for the Medicare Part A (HI). Therefore this can only be translated, in one way at this time. If you do not wish to file for Medicare Part A (HI) you must forfeit your right to cash benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:17
If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me at the above telephone number extension, 3016.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 81:18
Sincerely yours,
Technical Expert.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
17 July 2003

!TITLE:
Bring Back Honest Money



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Honest Money Act. The Honest Money Act repeals legal tender laws, a.k.a. forced tender laws, that compel American citizens to accept fiat (arbitrary) irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money as their unit of account. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the markets, rather than government dictates, determine what is to be used as money. Historically, the free-market choice for money has been some combination of gold and silver, whenever they were available. As Dr. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s top expert on constitutional money, states: “A free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.” 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:3
While fiat money is widely accepted thanks to legal tender laws, it does not maintain its purchasing power. This works to the disadvantage of ordinary people who lose the purchasing power of their savings, pensions, annuities, and other promises of future payment. Most importantly, because of the subsidies our present monetary system provides to banks, which, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated, “induces” the financial sector to increase leverage, the Federal Reserve can create additional money, in Mr. Greenspan’s words, “ without limit .” For this reason, absent legal tender laws, many citizens would refuse to accept fiat irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:4
Legal tender laws disadvantage ordinary citizens by forcing them to use money that is vulnerable to vast depreciation. As Stephen T. Byington wrote in the September 1895 issue of the American Federationist : “No legal tender law is ever needed to make men take good money; its only use is to make them take bad money. Kick it out!” Similarly, the American Federation of Labor asked: “If money is good and would be preferred by the people, then why are legal tender laws necessary? And, if money is not good and would not be preferred by the people, then why in a democracy should they be forced to use it?”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:5
The American Federation of Labor understood how the erosion of the value of money cheated working people. Further, honest money, i.e., specie, was one of the three issues that encouraged ordinary people to organize into unions when the union movement began in the U.S. circa 1830.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:6
While harming ordinary citizens, legal tender laws help expand the scope of government beyond that authorized under the Constitution. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are financial institutions, especially banks, which have been improperly granted the special privilege of creating fiat irredeemable electronic money out of thin air through a process commonly called fractional reserve lending.  According to the Federal Reserve, since 1950 these private companies (banks) have created almost $8 trillion out of nothing. This has been enormously advantageous to them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:7
The advantages given banks and other financial institutions by our fiat monetary system, which is built on a foundation of legal tender laws, allow them to realize revenues that would not be available to these institutions in a free market. This represents legalized plunder of ordinary people. Legal tender laws thus enable the redistribution of wealth from those who produce it, mostly ordinary working people, to those who create and move around our irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money which is, in essence, just scrip.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:8
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people’s liberty and prosperity. That is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender power to the federal government, and the states are empowered to make legal tender only out of gold and silver (see Article 1, Section 10). Instead, Congress was given the power to regulate money against a standard, i.e., the dollar. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the Coinage Act of 1792, he simply made into law the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the silver content of the Spanish milled dollar (371.25 grains of silver), which is the dollar referred to in the Constitution. This historical definition of the dollar has never been changed, and cannot be changed any more than the term “inch,” as a measure of length, can be changed. It is a gross misrepresentation to equate our irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money to “dollars.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:9
However, during the 20 th century, the legal tender power enabled politicians to fool the public into believing the dollar no longer meant a weight of gold or silver. Instead, the government told the people that the dollar now meant a piece of government-issued paper backed up by nothing except the promises of the government to maintain a stable value of currency. Of course, history shows that the word of the government (to protect the value of the dollar) is literally not worth the paper it is printed on.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:10
Tragically, the Supreme Court has failed to protect the American people from unconstitutional legal tender laws. Salmon Chase, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s administration, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting in Knox vs. Lee, summed up the argument against legal tender laws in twelve words: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty .” [emphasis added.]


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:11
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only Justice to dissent in every legal tender case to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to our constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.” A government with unrestrained powers is properly characterized as tyrannical.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 82:12
Repeal of legal tender laws will help restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to a medium of exchange chosen by the market, thereby protecting their current purchasing power as well as their pensions, savings, and other promises of future payment. Because honest money serves the needs of ordinary people, instead of fiat irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money that improperly transfers the wealth of society to a small specially privileged financial elite along with other special interests, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Abolishing The Federal Reserve

!DATE:
17 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:1
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article “The Greatest Theft in History” by Professor Murray Sabrin, into the RECORD. Professor Sabrin provides an excellent summary of how the Federal Reserve is responsible for the nation’s current economic difficulties.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:3
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:4
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:5
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:6
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:7
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:8
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:9
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:10
[From USA Daily, May 6, 2003]
THE GREATEST THEFT IN HISTORY
(By Murray Sabrin)
If you have a savings account, your bank probably credits it with interest every month. At the end of the month, you expect the bank to pay you the amount of interest it was obligated to pay you — no more no less. In other words, you would not expect the bank to change the interest it was going to pay you unless your account explicitly allows the bank to readjust the interest rate at its discretion.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:11
We know the interest rate paid on shortterm “risk free” deposits are based on the “real rate” plus an inflation premium. Historically, the real rate — the rental price of money — is the annual rate that borrowers and lenders agree on is typically 2–3 percent. So if you borrow $100 for a year, you would expect to pay the lender about $103 at the end of one year.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:12
However, if price inflation is expected to be 3% for the year the loan is outstanding, the lender wants to protect his principal from the decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. So, the interest rate on the loan would thus not be just 2% (assuming this is the real rate), but 2% plus an inflation premium of 3%, for a total of 5%.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:13
Currently the annual inflation rate is about 2.5%. Thus, the risk free rate (the real rate-2% — plus the inflation premium) on savings deposits and money market funds should be about 4.5%. For Americans who seek the safety of savings accounts and money market funds for their hard-earned money, the current average yield of 0.7% on money market funds is well below the current risk free rate. In addition, savers who own short-term U.S. Treasury debt are receiving slightly more than 1.1 % annually. What’s going on? How can savers be receiving about 3.5% less than the risk free rate on their money market accounts and savings accounts?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:14
The answer is simple: The Federal Reserve, the government created institution that was founded to “stabilize” the value of the dollar and “smooth” “out the business cycle”, which has the legal authority to create money out of thin air, is nothing more than the greatest manipulator of interest rates in the history of the world.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:15
The FED pumps money into the banking system if it wants to lower interest rates in order “to stimulate” the economy, and conversely will take money out of the banking system if it want to dampen borrowing and “cool off” an overheated economy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:16
For the past two-and-a-half years the FED has been pumping money into the banking system, driving down short-term interest rates to its current levels, well below the risk free rate. In fact, the American people are being penalized heavily for saving. Real interest rates are negative.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:17
In short, the American people are being ripped off to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:18
To put this in dollars and cents, there are $2.2 trillion in money market funds, with an average annual yield of 0.7%. The income from these funds is about $15 billion a year. If interest rates were 4.5%, savers would have nearly one hundred billion dollars in income or $85 billion more than they are currently receiving.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:19
Moreover, there is $4.61 trillion in the nation’s time and savings deposits, earning an average of about 1.0% or more depending on the financial institution your money is deposited in. (ING Direct pays 2.10% online on short-term deposits. The money can be transferred from your checking account to an online account and back. The minimum deposit to open an account is only $1. This is not a misprint.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:20
Using the same 4.5% risk free rate, savers should be receiving about $210 billion on their short-term deposits at the nation’s financial institutions. Instead, they are earning about $50 billion, for a loss of $160 billion in annual income. In addition, the U.S. Treasury has approximately $1 trillion in short-term debt that is yielding a little more than 1%. Savers holding the federal government’s short-term debt are losing approximately $35 billion in annual income.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:21
The bottom line: While the economic debate in Washington DC centers around President Bush’s tax cut proposal, which should pass intact because less money in the federal government means more freedom and prosperity for the American people, the Federal Reserve continues to perpetuate the greatest theft in world history. By having the power to manipulate interest rates, the FED in effect has not only a license to print money but also can redistribute income form savers to borrowers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:22
The winners of the FED’s interest rate manipulations include the nations’ financial institutions, business borrowers and government. The losers are anyone who wants to save for the proverbial rainy day and accumulate money for a down payment on a house or other family need.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:23
Thus, Federal Reserve policy aids and abets the legalized theft of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from low-and middle- income families to the economic elites of this country and profligate governments at all levels — all with the approval of the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 83:24
After 90 years of manipulating interest rates, it is time to abolish the FED and return the country to the only sound monetary system that is consistent with liberty and prosperity — the gold standard.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement

!DATE:
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $46.7 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:2
Just last year, Argentina was rocked by an economic crisis caused by IMF policies. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayersubsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6 percent into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:3
According to Congressman JIM SAXTON, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:4
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Five years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government- to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market; and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politicallypowerful special interests and third-world dictators.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds — taxpayer funds — to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 84:9
Last year’s Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning — economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 85

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
July 21, 2003    

!TITLE:
The Justifications for War



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:1
Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some of today’s critics were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when doing so appeared politically popular, but now are chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:2
I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going to war is now less than convincing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:3
The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:4
A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons did not exist.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:5
The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the one million pounds of sarin, mustard, and VX gasses alleged to exist.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:6
No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to the security of any nation, let alone America.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:7
The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was wrong. Saddam Hussein’s violations the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction remain unproven.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:8
How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was incompetence, while others claim outright deception and lies. Some say it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish the importance of sorting out truth from fiction, errors from malice.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:9
One question, though, I hope gets asked: Why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as justification for going to war? One would think the billions we spend would produce reliable intelligence-gathering agencies.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:10
Since we lack a coherent foreign policy, we see support for war from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful provided it endorses the war they want.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:11
Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict, and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:12
The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A legitimate threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day this will change.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:13
The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important strategic issue of the proper foreign policy in a republic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 85:14
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the foreign policy approach advocated by our Founding Fathers, a policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is the policy most conducive to peace and prosperity.  Policing the world and nation building are not proper for our constitutional republic.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
UNESCO

!DATE:
22 July 2003

AMENDMENT NO. 10 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:2
The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. PAUL:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNESCO

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and clear. It is to strike the funds for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984, since President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and the proposal now is that we rejoin. And this strikes the funding, which I think is a good idea.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:4
UNESCO was started with a bad idea. It became very corrupted, and it was almost unanimous that we get out of UNESCO in 1984, and actually I see no reason for us to rejoin.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:5
Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American, certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO’s main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums; something that we hardly need.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:6
In one of the publications put out from UNESCO it describes rather well what their intentions are. The publication is called Toward World Understanding. Let me just quote from that.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:7
“One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society. As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family,” the family, it says, “that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should, therefore, use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:8
Now, that is coming from a publication put out by UNESCO and states one of their goals. And I might just remind my colleagues of who the founding director general was, and that happened to have been Sir Julian Huxley. Huxley helped to write some of the goals set in the UNESCO, and he happens to be a believer in eugenics, but let me just quote from him what he thought this organization should do.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:9
He says, “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism.” And those words have not been changed; they still exist in these documents. They have not repealed that concept.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:10
He goes on to say, “In its education program, it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all people with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.” They are rather explicit in what the goal of UNESCO is through the educational process.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:11
“It is also to help the emergence of a single world culture, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy could not be passed now,” they say, “in time, the world will become ready for it.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 86:12
So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money. It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
UNESCO — Part 2

!DATE:
22 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. TERRY). Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me mention once again that the amendment strikes all the funding for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984. President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and that was a very popular move. The argument now is that UNESCO has made some reforms and therefore we should get back in. But their goals have not changed. I have already mentioned some of the goals of UNESCO, and they are not beneficial to us and they do not represent American ideals; it is an attack on American sovereignty. But during these 18 years since we have been out of UNESCO, it has only been the last year or two where they have talked about reforms. So over all these years, nothing has been done.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:3
But more importantly, it is the goals of UNESCO. For instance, UNESCO’s position on international taxation is that they would like to impose an international tax. If that is what the people want, if that is what the Congress wants, then you vote against my amendment. But if you think it is a bad idea for the U.N. and UNESCO to be leveling a worldwide tax, then you vote for my amendment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:4
I do not think the American people want that. I think the American people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:6
But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal, coercive population control program. That is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as far as our Constitution is concerned.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:7
UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it is done without congressional approval.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:8
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 87:9
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
PATRIOT Act

!DATE:
22 July 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:1
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.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. OTTER) for bringing this to the floor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:3
When the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was in the passions following 9/11, and that bill should have never been passed. It was brought up carelessly, casually, in a rapid manner. The bill that had been discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary was removed during the night before we voted. The full text of this bill was very difficult to find. I am convinced that very few Members were able to review this bill before voting. That bill should have never passed. We certainly should continue to maintain the sunset provisions. But that is a long way off, and we should be starting to reform and improve this particular piece of legislation. This is our first chance to do so.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:4
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) to make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal Government would not have access to the library records.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:5
But there is no need ever to sacrifice liberty in order to maintain security. I feel more secure when I have more liberty; and that is why I am a defender of liberty, because my main concern is security, both in the physical sense as well as the financial sense. I think the freer the country is, the more prosperous we are; and the freer the country is, the more secure we are.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:6
Yet it was in the atmosphere of post- 9/11 that so many were anxious to respond to what they perceived as demands by the people to do something. But just to do something, if you are doing the wrong thing, what good is it? You are doing more harm.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:7
But my main argument is that there is never a need to sacrifice liberty in order to protect liberty, and that is why we would like to at least remove this clause that allows sneak-and-peak search warrants.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:8
It took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop this concept that governments do not have the right to break in without the proper procedures and without probable cause. And yet we threw that out the window in this post-9/11 atmosphere, and we gave away a lot.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:9
Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning. It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on, and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution, the fourth amendment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:10
Not only should we do whatever we can to reform that legislation, but we already know that there is a PATRIOT Act No. 2. It has not been given to us, the Congress; but the administration has it for the future. It is available, but we have only gotten to see it from the Internet.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:11
In that bill there is a proposal that the government can strip us of our citizenship, and then anybody then stripped of their citizenship could be put into the situation that many foreigners find themselves in at Guantanamo before the military tribunals.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:12
I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize how serious the PATRIOT Act is.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 88:13
I hope that the Congress and our colleagues here will support this amendment. It is very necessary, and it will be voting for the Constitution; and it will be voting for liberty if we support this amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Medicinal Marijuana

!DATE:
22 July 2003

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:2
As a cosponsor of the amendment, I rise in support of this amendment and appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York has brought it to the floor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:3
I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the law; and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and tenth amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the Constitution is another.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:4
This has a lot to do with State law; but more importantly, as a physician, I see this bill as something dealing with compassion. As a physician, I have seen those who have died with cancer and getting chemotherapy and with AIDS and having nothing to help them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:5
There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:6
That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States’ rights and States’ abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:7
There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State law of California.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:8
Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. There is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that is purely marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly medication or a deadly drug that kills literally tens of thousands in this country, it is alcohol. And how many people want to go back to prohibition? I mean, nobody’s proposing that, and yet that is a deadly drug.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:9
The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this is a compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then we have to vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase the use of bad drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a parent and a grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the unwise use of drugs is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a medical problem; but we have turned this into a monster to the point where we will not even allow a person dying from cancer and AIDS to get a little bit of relief.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 89:10
I strongly urge support and a positive vote for this amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 90

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
24 July 2003  

!TITLE:
Stay out of Liberia!



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that while we encourage a regional West African effort to resolve the Liberia crisis, the United States military has no role - either alone or as part of a multinational force - in that country.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:2
We all recognize the tragedy in Liberia. A civil war has raged there for the past 14 years, leaving thousands dead and a million without homes. Horrific stories of atrocities abound. We wish for peace and a resolution to the conflict. But we must recognize that this resolution should come through regional West African efforts. These are the countries involved and affected; these are the countries with the most incentive to resolve the problem. Simply stated, there is no US national security interest at stake in the conflict - no matter how widely “national interest” is defined.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:3
But the administration is currently pondering repeated calls by some in the US and especially the United Nations to commit thousands of troops to a full-fledged American operation in Liberia. According to press reports, the Pentagon has just ordered about 4,500 sailors and marines from the Horn of Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, so as to be closer to Liberia just in case.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:4
Before we commit our troops to yet another foreign intervention, Congress must at the very least consider the implications of further committing our already seriously overextended military. According to recent press reporting, of the 33 brigades that make up the entirety of the US Army’s active duty combat forces, all but just three brigades are either currently engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea; are committed to other missions; or are reconstituting. This suggests that the US military is in serious danger of becoming over-extended.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:5
Mr. Speaker, there is no US interest in the conflict and US military involvement could well lead to resentment and more violence against US troops, as we saw in Somalia. We must ponder this possibility before yet again putting our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 90:6
I hope very much that my colleagues will join me in this effort and that we may see a quick Floor vote on this very important measure.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 91

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act

!DATE:
24 July 2003

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Surf Side, Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I also strongly support the bill itself, H.R. 2427. And I would like to advise other Members here that I approach all legislation the same way. I look at it through two prisms. One, I look to see if it promotes freedom, and the other I look to see if it conforms to the Constitution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:2
Every piece of legislation I look at it in this manner. Now, the sad part is I do not get to vote for many bills. They come up short on quite a few occasions. So I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. GUTKNECHT) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. EMERSON) for giving us a bill tonight that I can vote for enthusiastically. I finally found one, and I thank them very much.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:3
But in looking at the particular bill, one of the specific reasons why I oppose it, is I came to Congress opposing all welfare. Some people oppose welfare for the poor, but they support welfare for the rich. Others support welfare for the rich, but not for the poor; and some people support both kinds of welfare. I do not support any kind of welfare. This bill is needed to stop the indirect welfare through regulation for the rich and the pharmaceutical corporations. This is corporate welfare. That is one of the strong reasons why I am opposed to that.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:4
I also believe in freedom of choice. People have the right to make their own choices. We do not need to promote the nanny state. People are wise enough and cautious enough to make their own choices. Today we had two votes on free trade legislation. They were promoting international trade agreements, but done in the name of free trade. Why do we have free trade legislation, so-called? To lower tariffs, to lower prices to the consumer. But those very same people who worked so hard on free trade legislation are saying now we cannot allow the American people the option of buying drugs from other countries and saving money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:5
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2427.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:6
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, because I believe it is an important bill that will benefit all Americans. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect senior citizens who have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and a lower than average income. Of course, some of these seniors may soon have at least part of their prescription drug costs covered by Medicare.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:7
However, the fact that Medicare, that is already on shaky financial ground, will soon be subsidizing prescription drug costs makes it more important than ever that Congress address the issue of prescription drug costs. Of course, Congress’s actions should respect our constitutional limits and not further expand the role of government in the health care market.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:8
Fortunately, there are a number of marketoriented policies Congress can adopt to lower the prices of prescription drugs. This is because the main reason prescription drug prices are high is government policies, that give a few powerful companies monopoly power. For example, policies restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals enable pharmaceutical companies to charge abovemarket prices for their products. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should support H.R. 2427.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:9
Opponents of this bill have waged a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. Acceptance of this argument not only requires ignoring H.R. 2427’s numerous provisions ensuring the safety of imported drugs, it also requires assuming that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying quality products. The experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to foreign countries to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of purchasing safe products without interference from Big “Mother.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:10
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the current policies that endanger health by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes, lower income Americans will take less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some even forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals, H.R. 2427 will help ensure that no child has to take less than the recommended dosage of a prescription medicine and that no American has to choose between medication and food.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:11
Other opponents of this bill have charged that creating a free market in pharmaceuticals will impose Canadian style price controls on prescription drugs. This is nonsense. Nothing in H.R. 2427 gives the government any additional power to determine pharmaceutical prices. H.R. 2427 simply lowers trade barriers, thus taking a step toward ensuring that Americans pay a true market price for prescription drugs. This market price will likely be lower than the current price because current government policies raise the price of prescription drugs above what it would be in the market.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:12
Today, Americans enjoy access to many imported goods which are subject to price controls, and even receive government subsidies, in their countries of origin. Interestingly, some people support liberalized trade with Communist China, which is hardly a free economy, while opposing H.R. 2427! American policy has always been based on the principle that our economy is strengthened by free trade even when our trading partners engage in such market distorting policies as price controls and industrial subsidies. There is no good reason why pharmaceuticals should be an exception to the rule.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:13
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the numerous D.C.-based “free-market” organizations that are opposing this bill. Anyone following this debate could be excused for thinking they have entered into a Twilight Zone episode where “libertarian” policy wonks argue that the Federal Government must protect citizens from purchasing the pharmaceuticals of their choice, endorse protectionism, and argue that the Federal Government has a moral duty to fashion policies designed to protect the pharmaceutical companies’ profit margins. I do not wish to speculate on the motivation behind this deviation from free-market principles among groups that normally uphold the principles of liberty. However, I do hope the vehemence with which these organizations are attacking this bill is motivated by sincere, if misguided, principle, and not by the large donations these organizations have received from the pharmaceutical industry. If the latter is the case, then these groups have discredited themselves by suggesting that their free-market principles can be compromised when it serves the interests of their corporate donors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 91:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to show that they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interests by supporting H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 92

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
July 25, 2003

!TITLE:
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:1
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district.  A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, and those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic food at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:2
Unfortunately, the federal government is strangling this vital industry with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government mandates catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS) on the industry. Our shrimpers’ foreign competitors operate without such regulations, placing them at a distinct advantage.   The mandatory use of these devices also results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:3
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries supplied nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of 2002, and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:4
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors!  From 1999-2002, the United States government provided approximately $2,172,220,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the United States’ current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals approximately $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,972,220,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!   


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:5
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economies. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to American shrimpers directly subsidizing their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly benefits foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:6
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, my legislation forbids taxpayer dollars from being used to support Export-Import and OPIC subsidies to the countries that imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 92:7
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I therefore hope that Congress will soon stand up for American shrimpers by passing my Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 93

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
September 5, 2003

!TITLE:
Paper Money and Tyranny



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:1
All great republics throughout history cherished sound money. This meant that the monetary unit was a commodity of honest weight and purity. When money was sound, civilizations were found to be more prosperous and freedom thrived. The less free a society becomes, the greater the likelihood its money is being debased and the economic well-being of its citizens diminished.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:2
            Alan Greenspan, years before he became Federal Reserve Board Chairman in charge of flagrantly debasing the U.S. dollar, wrote about this connection between sound money, prosperity, and freedom. In his article “Gold and Economic Freedom” ( The Objectivist, July 1966), Greenspan starts by saying:  “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is an issue that unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense…that gold and economic freedom are inseparable.”  Further he states that:  “Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.”  Astoundingly, Mr. Greenspan’s analysis of the 1929 market crash, and how the Fed precipitated the crisis, directly parallels current conditions we are experiencing under his management of the Fed. Greenspan explains:   “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market- triggering a fantastic speculative boom.”   And, “…By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become overwhelming and unmanageable by the Fed.”  Greenspan concluded his article by stating: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.”   He explains that the “shabby secret” of the proponents of big government and paper money is that deficit spending is simply nothing more than a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.”  Yet here we are today with a purely fiat monetary system, managed almost exclusively by Alan Greenspan, who once so correctly denounced the Fed’s role in the Depression while recognizing the need for sound money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:3
            The Founders of this country, and a large majority of the American people up until the 1930s, disdained paper money, respected commodity money, and disapproved of a central bank’s monopoly control of money creation and interest rates. Ironically, it was the abuse of the gold standard, the Fed’s credit-creating habits of the 1920s, and its subsequent mischief in the 1930s, that not only gave us the Great Depression, but also prolonged it. Yet sound money was blamed for all the suffering. That’s why people hardly objected when Roosevelt and his statist friends confiscated gold and radically debased the currency, ushering in the age of worldwide fiat currencies with which the international economy struggles today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:4
            If honest money and freedom are inseparable, as Mr. Greenspan argued, and paper money leads to tyranny, one must wonder why it’s so popular with economists, the business community, bankers, and our government officials. The simplest explanation is that it’s a human trait to always seek the comforts of wealth with the least amount of effort. This desire is quite positive when it inspires hard work and innovation in a capitalist society. Productivity is improved and the standard of living goes up for everyone. This process has permitted the poorest in today’s capitalist countries to enjoy luxuries never available to the royalty of old.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:5
            But this human trait of seeking wealth and comfort with the least amount of effort is often abused. It leads some to believe that by certain monetary manipulations, wealth can be made more available to everyone.   Those who believe in fiat money often believe wealth can be increased without a commensurate amount of hard work and innovation. They also come to believe that savings and market control of interest rates are not only unnecessary, but actually hinder a productive growing economy. Concern for liberty is replaced by the illusion that material benefits can be more easily obtained with fiat money than through hard work and ingenuity. The perceived benefits soon become of greater concern for society than the preservation of liberty. This does not mean proponents of fiat money embark on a crusade to promote tyranny, though that is what it leads to, but rather they hope they have found the philosopher’s stone and a modern alternative to the challenge of turning lead into gold.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:6
            Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.”  Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.”   This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:7
            The Founders were well aware of the biblical admonitions against dishonest weights and measures, debased silver, and watered-down wine. The issue of sound money throughout history has been as much a moral issue as an economic or political issue.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:8
            Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.”  So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:9
            If indeed our generation can make the case for paper money, issued by an unauthorized central bank, it behooves us to at least have enough respect for the Constitution to amend it in a proper fashion. Ignoring the Constitution in order to perform a pernicious act is detrimental in two ways. First, debasing the currency as a deliberate policy is economically destructive beyond measure. Second, doing it without consideration for the rule of law undermines the entire fabric of our Constitutional republic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:10
            Though the need for sound money is currently not a pressing issue for Congress, it’s something that cannot be ignored because serious economic problems resulting from our paper money system are being forced upon us. As a matter of fact, we deal with the consequences on a daily basis, yet fail to see the connection between our economic problems and the mischief orchestrated by the Federal Reserve.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:11
            All the great religions teach honesty in money, and the economic shortcomings of paper money were well known when the Constitution was written, so we must try to understand why an entire generation of Americans have come to accept paper money without hesitation, without question.  Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of the nature and importance of money. Many in authority, however, have either been misled by false notions or see that the power to create money is indeed a power they enjoy, as they promote their agenda of welfarism at home and empire abroad.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:12
            Money is a moral, economic, and political issue. Since the monetary unit measures every economic transaction, from wages to prices, taxes, and interest rates, it is vitally important that its value is honestly established in the marketplace without bankers, government, politicians, or the Federal Reserve manipulating its value to serve special interests.
Money As a Moral Issue



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:13
The moral issue regarding money should be the easiest to understand, but almost no one in Washington thinks of money in these terms. Although there is a growing and deserved distrust in government per se, trust in money and the Federal Reserve’s ability to manage it remains strong. No one would welcome a counterfeiter to town, yet this same authority is blindly given to our central bank without any serious oversight by the Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:14
            When the government can replicate the monetary unit at will without regard to cost, whether it’s paper currency or a computer entry, it’s morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Both ways, it’s fraud.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:15
            A fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight. This system of legalized plunder (though not constitutional) allows one group to benefit at the expense of another. An actual transfer of wealth goes from the poor and the middle class to those in privileged financial positions.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:16
            In many societies the middle class has actually been wiped out by monetary inflation, which always accompanies fiat money. The high cost of living and loss of jobs hits one segment of society, while in the early stages of inflation, the business class actually benefits from the easy credit. An astute stock investor or home builder can make millions in the boom phase of the business cycle, while the poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can’t keep up with the rising cost of living.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:17
            Fiat money is also immoral because it allows government to finance special interest legislation that otherwise would have to be paid for by direct taxation or by productive enterprise. This transfer of wealth occurs without directly taking the money out of someone’s pocket. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest, with their dollars being depreciated in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The easy credit helps investors and consumers who have no qualms about going into debt and even declaring bankruptcy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:18
            If one sees the welfare state and foreign militarism as improper and immoral, one understands how the license to print money permits these policies to go forward far more easily than if they had to be paid for immediately by direct taxation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:19
            Printing money, which is literally inflation, is nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. It’s unfair and deceptive, and accordingly strongly opposed by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is no authority for Congress, the Federal Reserve, or the executive branch to operate the current system of money we have today.
Money As a Political Issue



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:20
            Although the money issue today is of little political interest to the parties and politicians, it should not be ignored. Policy makers must contend with the consequences of the business cycle, which result from the fiat monetary system under which we operate. They may not understand the connection now, but eventually they must.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:21
            In the past, money and gold have been dominant issues in several major political campaigns.  We find that when the people have had a voice in the matter, they inevitably chose gold over paper. To the common man, it just makes sense. As a matter of fact, a large number of Americans, perhaps a majority, still believe our dollar is backed by huge hoards of gold in Fort Knox.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:22
            The monetary issue, along with the desire to have free trade among the states, prompted those at the Constitutional Convention to seek solutions to problems that plagued the post-revolutionary war economy. This post-war recession was greatly aggravated by the collapse of the unsound fiat Continental dollar. The people, through their representatives, spoke loudly and clearly for gold and silver over paper.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:23
            Andrew Jackson, a strong proponent of gold and opponent of central banking (the Second Bank of the United States,) was a hero to the working class and was twice elected president. This issue was fully debated in his presidential campaigns. The people voted for gold over paper.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:24
            In the 1870s, the people once again spoke out clearly against the greenback inflation of Lincoln. Notoriously, governments go to paper money while rejecting gold to promote unpopular and unaffordable wars. The return to gold in 1879 went smoothly and was welcomed by the people, putting behind them the disastrous Civil War inflationary period.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:25
            Grover Cleveland, elected twice to the presidency, was also a strong advocate of the gold standard.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:26
            Again, in the presidential race of 1896, William McKinley argued the case for gold. In spite of the great orations by William Jennings Bryant, who supported monetary inflation and made a mocking “Cross of Gold” speech, the people rallied behind McKinley’s bland but correct arguments for sound money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:27
            The 20 th Century was much less sympathetic to gold. Since 1913 central banking has been accepted in the United States without much debate, despite the many economic and political horrors caused or worsened by the Federal Reserve since its establishment. The ups and downs of the economy have all come as a consequence of Fed policies, from the Great Depression to the horrendous stagflation of the ‘70s, as well as the current ongoing economic crisis.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:28
             A central bank and fiat money enable government to maintain an easy war policy that under strict monetary rules would not be achievable. In other words, countries with sound monetary policies would rarely go to war because they could not afford to, especially if they were not attacked.   The people could not be taxed enough to support wars without destroying the economy. But by printing money, the cost can be delayed and hidden, sometimes for years if not decades. To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:29
            Look at how the military budget is exploding, deficits are exploding, and tax revenues are going down. No problem; the Fed is there and will print whatever is needed to meet our military commitments, whether it’s wise to do so or not.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:30
            The money issue should indeed be a gigantic political issue. Fiat money hurts the economy, finances wars, and allows for excessive welfarism. When these connections are realized and understood, it will once again become a major political issue, since paper money never lasts. Ultimately politicians will not have a choice of whether to address or take a position on the money issue. The people and circumstances will demand it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:31
            We do hear some talk about monetary policy and criticism directed toward the Federal Reserve, but it falls far short of what I’m talking about. Big-spending welfarists constantly complain about Fed policy, usually demanding lower interest rates even when rates are at historic lows. Big-government conservatives promoting grand worldwide military operations, while arguing that “deficits don’t matter” as long as marginal tax rates are lowered, also constantly criticize the Fed for high interest rates and lack of liquidity. Coming from both the left and the right, these demands would not occur if money could not be created out of thin air at will. Both sides are asking for the same thing from the Fed for different reasons. They want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:32
            This is not the kind of interest in the Fed that we need. I’m anticipating that we should and one day will be forced to deal with the definition of the dollar and what money should consist of. The current superficial discussion about money merely shows a desire to tinker with the current system in hopes of improving the deteriorating economy. There will be a point, though, when the tinkering will no longer be of any benefit and even the best advice will be of no value. We have just gone through two-and-a-half years of tinkering with 13 rate cuts, and recovery has not yet been achieved. It’s just possible that we’re much closer than anyone realizes to that day when it will become absolutely necessary to deal with the monetary issue- both philosophically and strategically- and forget about the band-aid approach to the current system.
Money as an Economic Issue



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:33
For a time, the economic consequences of paper money may seem benign and even helpful, but are always disruptive to economic growth and prosperity.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:34
            Economic planners of the Keynesian-socialist type have always relished control over money creation in their efforts to regulate and plan the economy. They have no qualms with using this power to pursue their egalitarian dreams of wealth redistribution. That force and fraud are used to make the economic system supposedly fairer is of little concern to them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:35
            There are also many conservatives who do not endorse central economic planning as those on the left do, but nevertheless concede this authority to the Federal Reserve to manipulate the economy through monetary policy. Only a small group of constitutionalists, libertarians, and Austrian free-market economists reject the notion that central planning, through interest-rate and money-supply manipulation, is a productive endeavor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:36
            Many sincere politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers endorse the current system, not out of malice or greed, but because it’s the only system they have know.  The principles of sound money and free market banking are not taught in our universities. The overwhelming consensus in Washington, as well as around the world, is that commodity money without a central bank is no longer practical or necessary. Be assured, though, that certain individuals who greatly benefit from a paper money system know exactly why the restraints that a commodities standard would have are unacceptable.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:37
            Though the economic consequences of paper money in the early stage affect lower-income and middle-class citizens, history shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. There’s good reason for all of us to be concerned about our monetary system and the future of the dollar.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:38
            Nations that live beyond their means must always pay for their extravagance. It’s easy to understand why future generations inherit a burden when the national debt piles up. This requires others to pay the interest and debts when they come due. The victims are never the recipients of the borrowed funds. But this is not exactly what happens when a country pays off its debt. The debt, in nominal terms, always goes up, and since it is still accepted by mainstream economists that just borrowing endlessly is not the road to permanent prosperity, real debt must be reduced. Depreciating the value of the dollar does that. If the dollar loses 10% of its value, the national debt of $6.5 trillion is reduced in real terms by $650 billion dollars. That’s a pretty neat trick and quite helpful- to the government.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:39
That’s why the Fed screams about a coming deflation, so it can continue the devaluation of the dollar unabated. The politicians don’t mind, the bankers welcome the business activity, and the recipients of the funds passed out by Congress never complain. The greater the debt, the greater the need to inflate the currency, since debt cannot be the source of long-term wealth. Individuals and corporations who borrow too much eventually must cut back and pay off debt and start anew, but governments rarely do.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:40
But where’s the hitch?  This process, which seems to be a creative way of paying off debt, eventually undermines the capitalist structure of the economy, thus making it difficult to produce wealth, and that’s when the whole process comes to an end. This system causes many economic problems, but most of them stem from the Fed’s interference with the market rate of interest that it achieves through credit creation and printing money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:41
            Nearly 100 years ago, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained and predicted the failure of socialism. Without a pricing mechanism, the delicate balance between consumers and producers would be destroyed. Freely fluctuating prices provide vital information to the entrepreneur who is making key decisions on production. Without this information, major mistakes are made. A central planning bureaucrat cannot be a substitute for the law of supply and demand.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:42
            Though generally accepted by most modern economists and politicians, there is little hesitancy in accepting the omnipotent wisdom of the Federal Reserve to know the “price” of money – the interest rate – and its proper supply. For decades, and especially during the 1990s – when Chairman Greenspan was held in such high esteem, and no one dared question his judgment or the wisdom of the system- this process was allowed to run unimpeded by political or market restraints. Just as we must eventually pay for our perpetual deficits, continuous manipulation of interest and credit will also extract a payment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:43
            Artificially low interest rates deceive investors into believing that rates are low because savings are high and represent funds not spent on consumption. When the Fed creates bank deposits out of thin air making loans available at below-market rates, mal-investment and overcapacity results, setting the stage for the next recession or depression. The easy credit policy is welcomed by many:  stock-market investors, home builders, home buyers, congressional spendthrifts, bankers, and many other consumers who enjoy borrowing at low rates and not worrying about repayment. However, perpetual good times cannot come from a printing press or easy credit created by a Federal Reserve computer. The piper will demand payment, and the downturn in the business cycle will see to it. The downturn is locked into place by the artificial boom that everyone enjoys, despite the dreams that we have ushered in a “new economic era.”  Let there be no doubt: the business cycle, the stagflation, the recessions, the depressions, and the inflations are not a result of capitalism and sound money, but rather are a direct result of paper money and a central bank that is incapable of managing it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:44
            Our current monetary system makes it tempting for all parties, individuals, corporations, and government to go into debt. It encourages consumption over investment and production. Incentives to save are diminished by the Fed’s making new credit available to everyone and keeping interest rates on saving so low that few find it advisable to save for a rainy day. This is made worse by taxing interest earned on savings. It plays havoc with those who do save and want to live off their interest. The artificial rates may be 4, 5, or even 6% below the market rate, and the savers- many who are elderly and on fixed incomes- suffer unfairly at the hands of Alan Greenspan, who believes that resorting to money creation will solve our problems and give us perpetual prosperity.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:45
            Lowering interest rates at times, especially early in the stages of monetary debasement, will produce the desired effects and stimulate another boom-bust cycle. But eventually the distortions and imbalances between consumption and production, and the excessive debt, prevent the monetary stimulus from doing very much to boost the economy. Just look at what’s been happening in Japan for the last 12 years. When conditions get bad enough the only recourse will be to have major monetary reform to restore confidence in the system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:46
            The two conditions that result from fiat money that are more likely to concern the people are inflation of prices and unemployment. Unfortunately, few realize these problems are directly related to our monetary system. Instead of demanding reforms, the chorus from both the right and left is for the Fed to do more of the same- only faster. If our problem stems from easy credit and interest-rate manipulation by the Fed, demanding more will not do much to help. Sadly, it will only make our problems worse.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:47
            Ironically, the more successful the money managers are at restoring growth or prolonging the boom with their monetary machinations, the greater are the distortions and imbalances in the economy. This means that when corrections are eventually forced upon us, they are much more painful and more people suffer with the correction lasting longer.
Today’s Conditions



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:48
Today’s economic conditions reflect a fiat monetary system held together by many tricks and luck over the past 30 years. The world has been awash in paper money since removal of the last vestige of the gold standard by Richard Nixon when he buried the Bretton Woods agreement- the gold exchange standard- on August 15, 1971. Since then we’ve been on a worldwide paper dollar standard. Quite possibly we are seeing the beginning of the end of that system. If so, tough times are ahead for the United States and the world economy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:49
            A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:50
            Although dollar creation is ultimately the key to its value, many other factors play a part in its perceived value, such as: the strength of our economy, our political stability, our military power, the benefit of the dollar being the key reserve currency of the world, and the relative weakness of other nation’s economies and their currencies. For these reasons, the dollar has enjoyed a special place in the world economy. Increases in productivity have also helped to bestow undeserved trust in our economy with consumer prices, to some degree, being held in check and fooling the people, at the urging of the Fed, that “inflation” is not a problem. Trust is an important factor in how the dollar is perceived. Sound money encourages trust, but trust can come from these other sources as well. But when this trust is lost, which always occurs with paper money, the delayed adjustments can hit with a vengeance.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:51
            Following the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement, the world essentially accepted the dollar as a replacement for gold, to be held in reserve upon which even more monetary expansion could occur. It was a great arrangement that up until now seemed to make everyone happy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:52
            We own the printing press and create as many dollars as we please. These dollars are used to buy federal debt. This allows our debt to be monetized and the spendthrift Congress, of course, finds this a delightful convenience and never complains. As the dollars circulate through our fractional reserve banking system, they expand many times over. With our excess dollars at home, our trading partners are only too happy to accept these dollars in order to sell us their products. Because our dollar is relatively strong compared to other currencies, we can buy foreign products at a discounted price. In other words, we get to create the world’s reserve currency at no cost, spend it overseas, and receive manufactured goods in return. Our excess dollars go abroad and other countries-especially Japan and China- are only too happy to loan them right back to us by buying our government and GSE debt. Up until now both sides have been happy with this arrangement.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:53
            But all good things must come to an end and this arrangement is ending. The process put us into a position of being a huge debtor nation, with our current account deficit of more than $600 billion per year now exceeding 5% of our GDP. We now owe foreigners more than any other nation ever owed in all of history, over $3 trillion.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:54
            A debt of this sort always ends by the currency of the debtor nation decreasing in value. And that’s what has started to happen with the dollar, although it still has a long way to go. Our free lunch cannot last. Printing money, buying foreign products, and selling foreign holders of dollars our debt ends when the foreign holders of this debt become concerned with the dollar’s future value.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:55
            Once this process starts, interest rates will rise. And in recent weeks, despite the frenetic effort of the Fed to keep interest rates low, they are actually rising instead. The official explanation is that this is due to an economic rebound with an increase in demand for loans. Yet a decrease in demand for our debt and reluctance to hold our dollars is a more likely cause. Only time will tell whether the economy rebounds to any significant degree, but one must be aware that rising interest rates and serious price inflation can also reflect a weak dollar and a weak economy. The stagflation of the 1970s baffled many conventional economists, but not the Austrian economists. Many other countries have in the past suffered from the extremes of inflation in an inflationary depression, and we are not immune from that happening here. Our monetary and fiscal policies are actually conducive to such a scenario.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:56
            In the short run, the current system gives us a free ride, our paper buys cheap goods from overseas, and foreigners risk all by financing our extravagance. But in the long run, we will surely pay for living beyond our means. Debt will be paid for one way or another. An inflated currency always comes back to haunt those who enjoyed the “benefits” of inflation. Although this process is extremely dangerous, many economists and politicians do not see it as a currency problem and are only too willing to find a villain to attack. Surprisingly the villain is often the foreigner who foolishly takes our paper for useful goods and accommodates us by loaning the proceeds back to us. It’s true that the system encourages exportation of jobs as we buy more and more foreign goods. But nobody understands the Fed role in this, so the cries go out to punish the competition with tariffs. Protectionism is a predictable consequence of paper- money inflation, just as is the impoverishment of an entire middle class.  It should surprise no one that even in the boom phase of the 1990s, there were still many people who became poorer. Yet all we hear are calls for more government mischief to correct the problems with tariffs, increased welfare for the poor, increased unemployment benefits, deficit spending, and special interest tax reduction, none of which can solve the problems ingrained in a system that operates with paper money and a central bank.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:57
            If inflation were equitable and treated all classes the same, it would be less socially divisive. But while some see their incomes going up above the rate of inflation (movie stars, CEOs, stock brokers, speculators, professional athletes,) others see their incomes stagnate like lower-middle-income workers, retired people, and farmers. Likewise, the rise in the cost of living hurts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Because inflation treats certain groups unfairly, anger and envy are directed toward those who have benefited.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:58
            The long-term philosophic problem with this is that the central bank and the fiat monetary system are not blamed; instead free market capitalism is. This is what happened in the 1930s. The Keynesians, who grew to dominate economic thinking at the time, erroneously blamed the gold standard, balanced budgets, and capitalism instead of tax increases, tariffs, and Fed policy. This country cannot afford another attack on economic liberty similar to what followed the 1929 crash that ushered in the economic interventionism and inflationism which we have been saddled with ever since. These policies have brought us to the brink of another colossal economic downturn and we need to be prepared.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:59
            Big business and banking deserve our harsh criticism, but not because they are big or because they make a lot of money. Our criticism should come because of the special benefits they receive from a monetary system designed to assist the business class at the expense of the working class. Labor leader Samuel Gompers understood this and feared paper money and a central bank while arguing the case for gold. Since the monetary system is used to finance deficits that come from war expenditures, the military industrial complex is a strong supporter of the current monetary system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:60
            Liberals foolishly believe that they can control the process and curtail the benefits going to corporations and banks by increasing the spending for welfare for the poor. But this never happens. Powerful financial special interests control the government spending process and throw only crumbs to the poor. The fallacy with this approach is that the advocates fail to see the harm done to the poor, with cost of living increases and job losses that are a natural consequence of monetary debasement. Therefore, even more liberal control over the spending process can never compensate for the great harm done to the economy and the poor by the Federal Reserve’s effort to manage an unmanageable fiat monetary system.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:61
            Economic intervention, financed by inflation, is high-stakes government. It provides the incentive for the big money to “invest” in gaining government control. The big money comes from those who have it- corporations and banking interests. That’s why literally billions of dollars are spent on elections and lobbying. The only way to restore equity is to change the primary function of government from economic planning and militarism to protecting liberty. Without money, the poor and middle class are disenfranchised since access for the most part requires money. Obviously, this is not a partisan issue since both major parties are controlled by wealthy special interests. Only the rhetoric is different.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:62
            Our current economic problems are directly related to the monetary excesses of three decades and the more recent efforts by the Federal Reserve to thwart the correction that the market is forcing upon us. Since 1998, there has been a sustained attack on corporate profits. Before that, profits and earnings were inflated and fictitious, with WorldCom and Enron being prime examples. In spite of the 13 rate cuts since 2001, economic growth has not been restored.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:63
             Paper money encourages speculation, excessive debt, and misdirected investments. The market, however, always moves in the direction of eliminating bad investments, liquidating debt, and reducing speculative excesses. What we have seen, especially since the stock market peak of early 2000, is a knock-down, drag-out battle between the Fed’s effort to avoid a recession, limit the recession, and stimulate growth with its only tool, money creation, while the market demands the elimination of bad investments and excess debt. The Fed was also motivated to save the stock market from collapsing, which in some ways they have been able to do. The market, in contrast, will insist on liquidation of unsustainable debt, removal of investment mistakes made over several decades, and a dramatic revaluation of the stock market.   In this go-around, the Fed has pulled out all the stops and is more determined than ever, yet the market is saying that new and healthy growth cannot occur until a major cleansing of the system occurs. Does anyone think that tariffs and interest rates of 1% will encourage the rebuilding of our steel and textile industries anytime soon? Obviously, something more is needed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:64
            The world central bankers are concerned with the lack of response to low interest rates and they have joined in a concerted effort to rescue the world economy through a policy of protecting the dollar’s role in the world economy, denying that inflation exists, and justifying unlimited expansion of the dollar money supply. To maintain confidence in the dollar, gold prices must be held in check. In the 1960s our government didn’t want a vote of no confidence in the dollar, and for a couple of decades, the price of gold was artificially held at $35 per ounce.  That, of course, did not last.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:65
            In recent years, there has been a coordinated effort by the world central bankers to keep the gold price in check by dumping part of their large horde of gold into the market. This has worked to a degree, but just as it could not be sustained in the 1960s, until Nixon declared the Bretton Woods agreement dead in 1971, this effort will fail as well.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:66
            The market price of gold is important because it reflects the ultimate confidence in the dollar. An artificially low price for gold contributes to false confidence and when this is lost, more chaos ensues as the market adjusts for the delay.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:67
            Monetary policy today is designed to demonetize gold and guarantee for the first time that paper can serve as an adequate substitute in the hands of wise central bankers. Trust, then, has to be transferred from gold to the politicians and bureaucrats who are in charge of our monetary system. This fails to recognize the obvious reason that market participants throughout history have always preferred to deal with real assets, real money, rather than government paper. This contest between paper and honest money is of much greater significance than many realize. We should know the outcome of this struggle within the next decade.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:68
            Alan Greenspan, although once a strong advocate for the gold standard, now believes he knows what the outcome of this battle will be. Is it just wishful thinking on his part? In an answer to a question I asked before the Financial Services Committee in February 2003, Chairman Greenspan made an effort to convince me that paper money now works as well as gold: “I have been quite surprised, and I must say pleased, by the fact that central banks have been able to effectively simulate many of the characteristics of the gold standard by constraining the degree of finance in a manner which effectively brought down the general price levels.”  Earlier, in December 2002, Mr. Greenspan spoke before the Economic Club of New York and addressed the same subject: “The record of the past 20 years appears to underscore the observation that, although pressures for excess issuance of fiat money are chronic, a prudent monetary policy maintained over a protracted period of time can contain the forces of inflation.”  There are several problems with this optimistic assessment. First, efficient central bankers will never replace the invisible hand of a commodity monetary standard. Second, using government price indexes to measure the success of a managed fiat currency should not be reassuring. These indexes can be arbitrarily altered to imply a successful monetary policy. Also, price increases of consumer goods are not a litmus test for measuring the harm done by the money managers at the Fed. The development of overcapacity, excessive debt, and speculation still occur, even when prices happen to remain reasonably stable due to increases in productivity and technology. Chairman Greenspan makes his argument because he hopes he’s right that sound money is no longer necessary, and also because it’s an excuse to keep the inflation of the money supply going for as long as possible, hoping a miracle will restore sound growth to the economy. But that’s only a dream.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:69
            We are now faced with an economy that is far from robust and may get a lot worse before rebounding. If not now, the time will soon come when the conventional wisdom of the last 90 years, since the Fed was created, will have to be challenged. If the conditions have changed and the routine of fiscal and monetary stimulation don’t work, we better prepare ourselves for the aftermath of a failed dollar system, which will not be limited to the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:70
            An interesting headline appeared in the New York Times on July 31, 2003, “Commodity Costs Soar, But Factories Don’t Bustle.”  What is observed here is a sea change in attitude by investors shifting their investment funds and speculation into things of real value and out of financial areas, such as stocks and bonds.  This shift shows that in spite of the most aggressive Fed policy in history in the past three years, the economy remains sluggish and interest rates are actually rising. What can the Fed do?  If this trend continues, there’s little they can do. Not only do I believe this trend will continue, I believe it’s likely to accelerate. This policy plays havoc with our economy; reduces revenues, prompts increases in federal spending, increases in deficits and debt occur, and interest costs rise, compounding our budgetary woes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:71
            The set of circumstances we face today are unique and quite different from all the other recessions the Federal Reserve has had to deal with. Generally, interest rates are raised to slow the economy and dampen price inflation. At the bottom of the cycle interest rates are lowered to stimulate the economy. But this time around, the recession came in spite of huge and significant interest rate reductions by the Fed. This aggressive policy did not prevent the recession as was hoped; so far it has not produced the desired recovery. Now we’re at the bottom of the cycle and interest rates not only can’t be lowered, they are rising. This is a unique and dangerous combination of events. This set of circumstances can only occur with fiat money and indicates that further manipulation of the money supply and interest rates by the Fed will have little if any effect.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:72
            The odds aren’t very good that the Fed will adopt a policy of not inflating the money supply because of some very painful consequences that would result. Also there would be a need to remove the pressure on the Fed to accommodate the big spenders in Congress. Since there are essentially only two groups that have any influence on spending levels, big-government liberals and big- government conservatives, that’s not about to happen. Poverty is going to worsen due to our monetary and fiscal policies, so spending on the war on poverty will accelerate. Our obsession with policing the world, nation building, and pre-emptive war are not likely to soon go away, since both Republican and Democratic leaders endorse them. Instead, the cost of defending the American empire is going to accelerate. A country that is getting poorer cannot pay these bills with higher taxation nor can they find enough excess funds for the people to loan to the government. The only recourse is for the Federal Reserve to accommodate and monetize the federal debt, and that, of course, is inflation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:73
            It’s now admitted that the deficit is out of control, with next year’s deficit reaching over one-half trillion dollars, not counting the billions borrowed from  “trust funds” like Social Security. I’m sticking to my prediction that within a few years the national debt will increase over $1 trillion in one fiscal year. So far, so good, no big market reactions, the dollar is holding its own and the administration and congressional leaders are not alarmed. But they ought to be.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:74
            I agree, it would be politically tough to bite the bullet and deal with our extravagance, both fiscal and monetary, but the repercussions here at home from a loss of confidence in the dollar throughout the world will not be a pretty sight to behold. I don’t see any way we are going to avoid the crisis.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:75
            We do have some options to minimize the suffering. If we decided to, we could permit some alternatives to the current system of money and banking we have today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:76
            Already, we took a big step in this direction. Gold was illegal to own between 1933 and 1976. Today millions of Americans do own some gold.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:77
            Gold contracts are legal, but a settlement of any dispute is always in Federal Reserve notes. This makes gold contracts of limited value.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:78
            For gold to be an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, taxes on any transactions in gold must be removed, both sales and capital gains.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:79
            Holding gold should be permitted in any pension fund, just as dollars are permitted in a checking account of these funds.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:80
            Repeal of all legal tender laws is a must. Sound money never requires the force of legal tender laws. Only paper money requires such laws.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:81
            These proposals, even if put in place tomorrow, would not solve all the problems we face. It would though, legalize freedom of choice in money, and many who worry about having their savings wiped out by a depreciating dollar would at least have another option. This option would ease some of the difficulties that are surely to come from runaway deficits in a weakening economy with skyrocketing inflation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:82
            Curbing the scope of government and limiting its size to that prescribed in the Constitution is the goal that we should seek. But political reality makes this option available to us only after a national bankruptcy has occurred. We need not face that catastrophe. What we need to do is to strictly limit the power of government to meddle in our economy and our personal affairs, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.
Conclusion



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:83
            It’s no coincidence that during the period following the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the elimination of the gold standard, a huge growth in the size of the federal government and its debt occurred. Believers in big government, whether on the left or right, vociferously reject the constraints on government growth that gold demands. Liberty is virtually impossible to protect when the people allow their government to print money at will. Inevitably, the left will demand more economic interventionism, the right more militarism and empire building. Both sides, either inadvertently or deliberately, will foster corporatism. Those whose greatest interest is in liberty and self-reliance are lost in the shuffle. Though left and right have different goals and serve different special-interest groups, they are only too willing to compromise and support each other’s programs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:84
            If unchecked, the economic and political chaos that comes from currency destruction inevitably leads to tyranny- a consequence of which the Founders were well aware. For 90 years we have lived with a central bank, with the last 32 years absent of any restraint on money creation. The longer the process lasts, the faster the printing presses have to run in an effort to maintain stability. They are currently running at record rate. It was predictable and is understandable that our national debt is now expanding at a record rate.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:85
            The panicky effort of the Fed to stimulate economic growth does produce what it considers favorable economic reports, recently citing second quarter growth this year at 3.1%. But in the footnotes, we find that military spending—almost all of which is overseas- was up an astounding 46%. This, of course, represents deficit spending financed by the Federal Reserve’s printing press. In the same quarter, after-tax corporate profits fell 3.4%. This is hardly a reassuring report on the health of our economy and merely reflects the bankruptcy of current economic policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 93:86
            Real economic growth won’t return until confidence in the entire system is restored. And that is impossible as long as it depends on the politicians not spending too much money and the Federal Reserve limiting its propensity to inflate our way to prosperity. Only sound money and limited government can do that.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

!DATE:
September 9, 2003

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to present comments on the important issue of how to maintain continuity of government if a majority of members of the House of Representatives are incapacitated. This issue has recently attracted attention because of the proposal of the “Continuity of Government (COG) Commission,” that the Constitution be amended to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House in the event of an emergency.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:2
Since the COG Commission proposal was introduced I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in Congress function is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people. A superior way to address concerns regarding continuity of House operations in the event of an emergency is contained in HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:3
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. Turning once again to Federalist 52, we find this point eloquently made by Mssrs. Madison and Hamilton: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are re-examining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:5
Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:6
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia (where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside) was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government. Yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.  Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency.  As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC.  Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:8
Chairman Sensenbrenner’s bill exercises Congress’ power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 21 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares a majority of House members are incapacitated. This proposal protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:9
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible. The re-call election in California shows it is possible to have a gubernatorial election, in the most populous state in the union no less, in less than three months time. Surely it is possible to hold an election in a congressional district in under that amount of time.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 94:10
In conclusion, I once again thank the Chairman of this Committee for allowing me to express my views before the House. I also once again urge my colleagues to reject any proposal that takes away the people’s right to elect their representatives and instead support HR 2844, the Continuity of Congress Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

!DATE:
September 10, 2003

!TITLE:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:2
I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:3
One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:4
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt.  GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:5
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:6
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:7
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing.   Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:8
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:9
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 95:10
Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act

!DATE:
10 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 10, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect Federal subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 alone.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:2
One of the major government privileges granted the GSE is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of GSE. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetarize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not have reason to believe that Fannie and Freddie were underwritten by the Federal government then investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provided assurance they were following accepted management and accounting practices before investing in Fannie and Freddie.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:5
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing marketing by allowing Fannie, Freddie and the home loan bank board to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capitol is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:6
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially- created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:7
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSE’s debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:8
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 96:9
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act

!DATE:
10 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 10, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the Government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:2
No one can doubt that the United States steel industry is in crisis. Approximately 15 million tons of flat-rolled capability (20 percent of the existing domestic capacity base at the start of 2000) was closed in the 18 months from September 2000 to December 2001. The decline of the steel industry has a human cost: in just the last five years, 30,000 Americans once productively employed in the steel industry have joined the ranks of the unemployed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:3
One of the problems facing America’s domestic steel industry is that it must compete with foreign industries that receive subsidies from their governments. Some of these subsidies are explicitly intended to provide these companies with a non-market advantage over American steel producers. The U.S. Government further compounds the damage caused by these subsidies by forcing the domestic steel producers to support their major competitors through taxpayer-funded programs.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:4
For example, according to the most recent figures available, the eight countries with the greatest EXIMBANK exposure are all among the top ten exporters of steel and/or steel products to the United States. In fact, EXIMBANK has provided over $250 billion of U.S. taxpayer support to these countries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:5
Meanwhile, OPIC has provided over $3 billion of the taxpayers’ money to seven of the top ten leading steel exporters. Thus, the American taxpayer has provided at least $253 billion worth of support to the countries that are the leading competitors of the domestic steel industry. This does not count the funds provided these countries by the IMF. Since money is fungible, the practical effect of providing aid to countries which practice industrial policy is to free up resources these governments can use to further subsidize their steel industries. Thus, taxpayer dollars sent to foreign governments and industries can benefit foreign steel manufacturers even if American taxpayer money is not sent to directly benefit those industries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:6
However, hard as it may be to believe, organizations funded by American taxpayers actually use American tax dollars to directly assist foreign steel producers! For example, among the projects funded by EXIMBANK in recent years is an $18 million loan guarantee to expand steel manufacturing in Red China.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:7
Ironically, many of the supporters of these foreign giveaways claim to be promoters of free trade. This claim makes as much sense as a supporter of higher taxes and spending claiming to be a fiscally conservative supporter of limited government. Free trade is the peaceful exchange of goods and services across borders unhampered by government interference. Taxing American workers to support their overseas competitors is not free trade. Instead, it is corporatism designed to benefit certain politically powerful interests at the expense of American entrepreneurs and workers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 97:8
I have no doubt that America’s steel industry can out-compete the steel industry of any country if allowed to compete on a level planning field. Unfortunately, due in part to government policy, today’s playing field is in no way level. Congress must end this economically destructive, immoral, and unconstitutional policy of forcing owners and workers in the domestic steel industry to subsidize their competitors. I therefore call upon my colleagues to cosponsor the Steel Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 98

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
September 16, 2003

!TITLE:
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative media machine has been hard at work lately drumming up support for the $87 billion appropriation to extend our precarious occupation of Iraq. Opposition to this funding, according to the Secretary of Defense, encourages our enemies and hinders the war against terrorism. This is a distortion of the facts and is nothing more than attacking the messenger when one disapproves of the message.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:2
Those within the administration, prior to the war, who warned of the dangers and real costs were fired. Yet now it turns out that they were correct, that it would not be a cakewalk, that it would require a lot more troops, and costs would far exceed original expectations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:3
The President recently reminded us that we went into Iraq to force its compliance with U.N. resolutions, since the U.N. itself was not up to the task. It was not for national security reasons. Yet we all know that the U.N. never endorsed this occupation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:4
The question we in the Congress ought to ask is this: What if our efforts to westernize and democratize Iraq do not work? Who knows? Many believe that our pursuit of nation building in Iraq will actually make things worse in Iraq, in the entire Middle East, throughout the entire Muslim world, and even here in the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:5
This is a risky venture, and new funding represents an escalation of our efforts to defend a policy that has little chance of working.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:6
Since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor any evidence that the army of Saddam Hussein could have threatened the security of any nation, let alone the United States, a new reason is now given to justify an endless entanglement in a remote area of the world 6,000 miles from our homeland.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:7
We are now told that we must occupy Iraq to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Yet not one shred of evidence has been produced to show that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11 or any affiliation with al-Qaeda.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:8
The American people are first told they have to sacrifice to pay for the bombing of Iraq. Now they must accept the fact that they must pay to rebuild it. If they complain, they will be accused of being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. I wonder what a secret poll of our troops would reveal about whether they thought public support for bringing them home next week indicated a lack of support for their well-being.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:9
Some believe that by not raising taxes to pay for the war we can fund it on the cheap. We cannot.  When deficits skyrocket the federal government prints more money, the people are effectively taxed by losing value in their savings and in their paychecks. The inflation tax is a sinister and evil way to pay for unpopular wars. It has been done that way for centuries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:10
Mr. Speaker, I guess we shouldn’t worry because we can find a way to pay for it. Already we are charging our wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for food when recuperating in a hospital from their war injuries.  We also know that other soldiers are helping out by buying their own night vision goggles, GPS devices, short wave radios, backpacks, and even shoes!  So I suppose we can fund the war that way.  It does not seem like much of a bother to cut veterans’ benefits. Besides, many conservatives for years have argued that deficits do not really matter, only tax rates do. So let us just quit worrying about deficits and this $87 billion supplemental.  Of course I’m being sarcastic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:11
Seriously, though, funding for this misadventure should be denied no matter how well-meaning its supporters are. To expect a better world to come from force of arms abroad and confiscatory taxation at home is nothing but a grand illusion. The sooner we face the reality, the better.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:12
While we nation-build in Iraq in the name of defeating terrorism, we ignore our responsibilities to protect our borders at home while we compromise the liberties of our citizens with legislation like the Patriot Act.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:13
There are two main reasons we need to reject the foreign policy of the past 50 years that has been used to rationalize our presence in Iraq. First, the practical: We cannot expect to force western, U.S.-style democracy on a nation that for over 1,000 years learned to live with and accept an Islamic-based legal system.  No matter what we say or believe, to the Iraqis they have been invaded by the Christian west, and whether it is the United States, U.N. or European troops that are sent to teach them the ways of the west it will not matter.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 98:14
Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be rejected.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 99

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Thrift Savings Improvement Act

!DATE:
16 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 16, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act. This legislation to expand the investment options available to congressional and other federal employees by creating a precious metals investment fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Adding a precious metals fund to the TSP will enhance the plan’s ability to offer congressional employees a wide range of investment options that can provide financial security even during difficult economic conditions.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:2
All of us recognize the importance of maintaining a professional congressional staff and promoting longevity of service in order to enhance stability in the operations of Congress. This is why we have recently enacted legislation authorizing new benefits, such as a student loan forgiveness program, and have taken other measures to improve staff compensation and benefits.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:3
The Thrift Savings Plan is one of the most important benefits offered to congressional employees. A strong TSP can obviously play a key role in attracting and retaining talented individuals to serve in the legislative branch. However, the three stock index funds in the Thrift Savings Plan have not recently performed well, especially when measured against inflation. In 2002, for example, losses from these funds were greater than three, four, and five percent, respectively, in the month of December and, more than 15, 18, and 22 percent, respectively, for the entire year!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:4
In contrast, increases in gold spot prices more than offset the losses experienced by even the worst performing stock-indexed fund in the Thrift Savings Plan in 2002, with the price of gold increasing by nearly 25 percent in the year and by more than nine percent in December!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:5
Recent gains aside, precious metals have a number of features that make them a sound part of a prudent investment strategy. In particular, inflation does not erode the value of precious metals is not eroded over time. Thus, precious metals can serve as a valuable “inflation hedge.” Precious metals also maintain, or even increase, their value during times of stock market instability, such as what the country is currently experiencing. Thus, investments in precious metals can help ensure that an investment portfolio maintains its value during times of economic instability.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 99:6
Federal employees could greatly benefit from the protection against inflation and economic downturns provided by prudent investments in precious metals. I, therefore, once again urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 100

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Congratulations

!DATE:
17 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 17, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor John and Geraldine Dettling, a couple with longstanding roots in the 14th congressional district of Texas. Mr. and Mrs. Dettling recently celebrated 60 years of marriage, an incredible milestone that deserves recognition and great respect. The longevity of their marriage serves as an inspiration for all couples today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 100:2
John Dettling and Geraldine Wendel met in south Texas more than 6 decades ago. They married in El Campo, Texas in 1943, on the eve of World War II. Less than 1 year later, John left for Europe as a soldier. Like many couples of the era, the war separated the young newlyweds for some time. Happily, John returned from the war safe and sound and they began a long life together. The couple built a home in Wharton, Texas, where they still live today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 100:3
Over the years the Dettlings were blessed with 6 children, along with (so far) 11 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. John worked as a barber for 30 years, and then worked as a security guard for 6 years. Throughout the decades Geraldine worked hard at home raising the children; when they were older she embarked on a nursing career. Both enjoy retirement today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 100:4
I’m happy to report that the Dettlings’ momentous 60th anniversary did not go unnoticed. They renewed their vows at Holy Family Catholic Church in Wharton. Afterward, an anniversary reception was held for the couple at the Wharton County Historical Museum, where they celebrated with family and 200 well-wishers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 100:5
Mr. Speaker, in today’s transient world the Dettlings stand out as a couple who maintained both their marriage and their local roots for decades. It’s my privilege to honor them in the House of Representatives today.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 101

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
September 18, 2003

!TITLE:
Reject UN Gun Control!



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.” This legislation prohibits US taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the Second Amendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are “reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:2
Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:3
Secretary Annan is not the only globalist calling for international controls on firearms. For example, some world leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac, have called for a global tax on firearms. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council’s “Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms” calls for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and praises the restrictive gun polices of Red China and France!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:4
Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right  and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right . Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:5
Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. If the UN is successful in implementing a global regime of gun control, more innocent lives will be lost to public (and private) criminals. 


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:6
I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 101:7
Mr. Speaker, global gun control is a recipe for global tyranny and a threat to the safety of all law-abiding persons. I therefore hope all my colleagues will help protect the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms by cosponsoring the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 102

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Tribute To Larry Reed

!DATE:
25 september 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 25, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to one of America’s leading advocates for liberty, my friend Larry Reed, who celebrates his 50th birthday on September 29th. In 1993 Larry founded the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. Under his leadership, Mackinac has emerged as one of the largest, most prolific, and effective think tanks in America. Mackinac focuses on issues affecting Michigan; however, much of their work is useful to policymakers at the State and national level.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:2
Prior to founding Mackinac, Larry served as Chair of the Department of Economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan. While at Northwood, Larry developed the university dual major in Economic and Business management and founded the University’s “Freedom Seminar.” Larry has also been a candidate for Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:3
In addition to running Mackinac, Larry is a prolific author. He has written over 800 newspaper columns and articles, 200 radio commentaries, dozens of articles in magazines and journals in the United States and abroad. Larry is also the author of five books including Lessons From the Past: The Silver Panic of 1893 and Private Cures for Public Ills: The Promise of Privatization. All of Larry’s writings reflect his unswerving commitment to limited government and the free market as the best way to promote human happiness.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:4
Larry has also found time to deliver more than 700 speeches, traveling to 40 states and 10 foreign countries to spread the freedom philosophy. Larry also promotes liberty as a member and past chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the nation’s oldest free-market educational institution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:5
In 1993, Larry was appointed by then-Governor John Engler to head the Headlee Amendment Blue Ribbon Commission. Governor Engler also appointed Larry to the task force of the Secchia Commission on Total Quality Government, where Larry helped develop policies aimed at streamlining Michigan’s state government. I am sure the taxpayers of Michigan are grateful to Larry for his efforts to reduce unnecessary spending.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 102:6
Mr. Speaker, the great economist Ludwig Von Mises once said that “everyone. . . . must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historic struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged.” Few have so vigorously thrust themselves into the intellectual and policy battle on the side of freedom as Larry Reed. It is therefore my privilege to pay tribute to this champion of liberty on his 50th birthday.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 103

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
September 30, 2003

!TITLE:
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:2
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:3
It may be argued that vouchers are at least a more efficient welfare program than continuing to throw taxpayer money at public schools. However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on DC’s public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not guaranteed a continued revenue stream.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:4
Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a child’s right to a quality education and the need for equal educational opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have a “right” to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting government’s role in establishing standards to ensure that providers are giving their consumers a “quality” product. Thus, in order to ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students’ “right” to a “quality” education (as defined by the government) private schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as the public schools.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:5
Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled the list to “help” parents choose a quality school for their children.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:6
The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:7
Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to “...an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control religious activities.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:8
Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the “government’s seal of approval.” Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:9
We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the college of their choice. However the government has used its support of student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality education if the experience of higher education was replicated in private K-12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the supporters of vouchers have their way.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:10
Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests that, “The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing regime mandated by Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for public schools.” In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:11
Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children’s education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children’s education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:12
The Family Education Freedom Act restores true accountability to education by putting parents in control of the education dollar. If a child is not being educated to the parents’ satisfaction, the parent will withdraw that student from the school and spend their education dollars someplace else.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:13
I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 103:14
Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state and impose government “standards” on private schools, turning them into “privatized” versions of public schools. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 104

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Dream Downpayment Act

!DATE:
1 October 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American dream, as conceived by the Nation’s Founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, often times sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the Federal Government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:2
H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the American people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:3
As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politician and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:4
H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of private citizens.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:5
Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:6
I hope no one confuses my opposition to this bill as opposition to any congressional actions to ensure more Americans have access to affordable housing. After all, one reason many Americans lack affordable housing is because taxes and regulations have made it impossible for builders to provide housing at a price that could be afforded by many lower-income Americans. Therefore, Congress should cut taxes and regulations. A good start would be generous housing tax credits. Congress should also consider tax credits and regulatory relief for developers who provide housing for those with low incomes. For example, I am cosponsoring H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which provides a tax credit to developers who construct or rehabilitate low-income housing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 104:7
H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 105

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment

!DATE:
7 October 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 7, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns over H. Con. Res 274. The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. Madam Speaker, what the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call U.S. manipulation of foreign elections “promoting democracy.” How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:2
In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, CATO Institute scholar Barbara Conry notes that:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:3
“NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements . . .


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:4
“. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of “promoting democracy.” Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED’s detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls . . .


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:5
“. . . In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the most negative aspects of both private aid and official foreign aid — the pitfalls of decentralized ‘loose cannon’ foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the United States is trying to ‘run the show’ around the world.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:6
The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:7
Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:8
Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:9
Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . . . which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former highranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas . . .


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:10
Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha’s Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:11
President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: “Without IRI’s support we could not have come so far so fast.” Indeed. Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister of Bulgaria and a leader of ‘reform.’ ”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:12
In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that “IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign,” adding that IRI efforts secured “a victory for reformers in Slovakia.” What the IRI does not say is that many of these “reformers” had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:13
More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela’s democratically-elected president, saying, “Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.” It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela’s legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 105:14
Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 106

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
October 15, 2003

!TITLE:
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. This bill will impose what is effectively a trade embargo against Syria and will force the severance of diplomatic and business ties between the United States and Syria. It will also significantly impede travel between the United States and Syria. Worse yet, the bill also provides essentially an open-ended authorization for the president to send US taxpayer money to Syria should that country do what we are demanding in this bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:2
This bill cites Syria’s alleged support for Hamas, Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups as evidence that Syria is posing a threat to the United States. Not since the Hizballah bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 have any of these organizations attacked the United States. After that attack on our Marines, who were sent to Beirut to intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with the United States, President Ronald Reagan wisely ordered their withdrawal from that volatile area. Despite what the interventionists constantly warn, the world did not come to an end back in 1983 when the president decided to withdraw from Beirut and leave the problems there to be worked out by those countries most closely involved.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:3
What troubles me greatly about this bill is that although the named, admittedly bad, terrorist organizations do not target the United States at present, we are basically declaring our intention to pick a fight with them. We are declaring that we will take pre-emptive actions against organizations that apparently have no quarrel with us. Is this wise, particularly considering their capacity to carry out violent acts against those with whom they are in conflict? Is this not inviting trouble by stirring up a hornet’s nest? Is there anything to be gained in this?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:4
This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government’s inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders — particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year – potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm – yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:5
I am also concerned about the timing of this bill. As we continue to pursue Al-Qaeda - most of which escaped and continue to operate - it seems to me we need all the help we can get in tracking these criminals down and holding them to account for the attack on the United States. As the AP reported recently:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:6
“So, too, are Syria’s claims, supported by US intelligence, that Damascus has provided the United States with valuable assistance in countering terror.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:7
“The Syrians have in custody Mohammed Haydar Zammer, believed to have recruited some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and several high-level Iraqis who were connected to the Saddam Hussein government have turned up in US custody.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:8
Numerous other press reports detail important assistance Syria has given the US after 9/11. If Syria is providing assistance to the US in tracking these people down - any assistance - passing this bill can only be considered an extremely counterproductive development. Does anyone here care to guess how much assistance Syria will be providing us once this bill is passed? Can we afford to turn our back on Syria’s assistance, even if it is not as complete as it could be?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:9
That is the problem with this approach. Imposing sanctions and cutting off relations with a country is ineffective and counterproductive. It is only one-half step short of war and very often leads to war. This bill may well even completely eliminate any trade between the two countries. It will almost completely shut the door on diplomatic relations. It sends a strong message to Syria and the Syrian people: that we no longer wish to engage you. This cannot be in our best interest.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:10
This bill may even go further than that. In a disturbing bit of déjà vu, the bill makes references to “Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)” and threatens to “impede” Syrian weapons ambitions. This was the justification for our intervention in Iraq, yet after more than a thousand inspectors have spent months and some 300 million dollars none have been found. Will this bill’s unproven claims that Syria has WMD be later used to demand military action against that country?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 106:11
Mr. Speaker: history is replete with examples of the futility of sanctions and embargoes and travel bans. More than 40 years of embargo against Cuba have not produced the desired change there. Sadly, embargoes and sanctions most often hurt those least responsible. A trade embargo against Syria will hurt American businesses and will cost American jobs. It will make life more difficult for the average Syrian - with whom we have no quarrel. Making life painful for the population is not the best way to win over hearts and minds. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this counterproductive bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 107

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Defense Production Reauthorization Act

!DATE:
15 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 15, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the name of “national security,” fails both of these standards. In fact, when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was greeted by silence from the “expert” witnesses!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:2
Under this bill, the President is given authority to void private contracts in order to ensure that federal defense priorities, as determined by the executive, are met. The only limitation on the President’s judgment is a requirement that he submits a series of “findings” to Congress. The Executive also has what appears to be unchecked authority to use financial incentives such as loan guarantees, direct loans, and purchase guarantees to ensure production of items he determines are in the national interest.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:3
Congress appears to have no ability to perform any real oversight of a Presidential action under the DPA. In fact, my office has been informed by the Congressional Research Service that past Presidents may have invoked the DPA without even submitting the required findings to Congress!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:4
The wide grant of unchecked power to the Executive runs counter to the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. The Founders carefully limited the executive power because they recognized that an executive with unfettered power was a threat to liberty. In recent years we have seen administrations of both parties undermine the Constitutional separation of powers via enhanced reliance on executive orders and unilateral decision-making. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act provides Constitutional blessing to this usurpation of power, and not just in areas clearly related to national defense. For example, the DPA has been used to justify federal interference in the energy market. It is an open question what other exercise of federal power could be justified as related to defense. For example, federal education programs has been justified on the grounds that an educated population is vital to national defense, so perhaps a future president will use DPA to impose a national curriculum!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:5
I am also concerned that this bill violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. In particular, DPA allows the government to seize private property by interfering with the performance of private contracts in order to give priority to military production. This action reduces the value of the affected parties’ proprietary interests, and thus is a taking, requiring the government to provide just compensation to the affected party. The Fifth Amendment intends to assure that the government does not unfairly burden one group of citizens in carrying out its constitutional functions. By not providing for just compensation, DPA allows the executive to unfairly burden one group of citizens for costs that the Constitution requires be shared among the entire population.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 107:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Production Act gives the executives unchecked power to meddle in the economy, flying in the face of the original constitutional structure and endangering the very liberty it claims to protect. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 108

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Supplemental Appropriation

!DATE:
16 October 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:2
Mr. Chairman, this $87 billion is a little bit steep for my wallet, and it is a little bit steep for probably the wallets of most Americans. So I will be voting against it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:3
But I understand this is called a supplemental. It is interesting that it is a supplemental because we have not passed a budget; so I have to suggest maybe we ought to call this a preemptive budget rather than a supplemental. But it is the largest, and to have it before the regular budget is pretty astounding that we are going to spend this type of money.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:4
But I want to take this minute I have to quote from a book, “A World Transformed,” and this was written about 5 years ago talking about Iraq. And I think this is a very serious quote and something worth listening to:


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:5
“Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq . . . There was no available ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:6
That was written 5 years ago, very perceptive. It was written by President Bush, Sr. So I think we are here now in a very hostile land with a very difficult situation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 108:7
I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely believed our national security was not threatened, and I also was convinced that it had no relationship to 9–11; and I think those two concerns have been proven to be correct. Many who had voted against the war now suggest that they might vote for this appropriation because they feel it is necessary to vote to support the troops. I think that is a red herring argument because if we take a poll, and there have been some recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we find out that probably all of them would love to come home next week. So I do not see how a vote against this appropriation can be construed. As a matter of fact, that is challenging the motivation of those of us who will oppose the legislation, that we do not support the troops. So I am in support of voting against this appropriation.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 109

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Veterans Recognized By The Silver Rose

!DATE:
16 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 16, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Gary Chenett, and Robert Baker. These two gentlemen are responsible for awarding The Silver Rose to our military veterans in Texas and across the Nation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 109:2
Established in 1997 by Mary Elizabeth Marchand, The Order of The Silver Rose gives many veterans the satisfaction of being recognized for making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Mrs. Marchand’s father, Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Davis, died from illnesses resulting from the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. A combat veteran, Chief Davis was not wounded in combat but exposed to a dangerous substance while fighting for his country. Exposure to Agent Orange resulted in Davis losing his life some years later. Subsequently, determination was made by the Department of Defense that Chief Davis and many like him do not qualify for The Purple Heart.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 109:3
The Order of The Silver Rose recognizes the courage, heroism, and contributions of American service personnel who were exposed to Agent Orange in a combat zone. There are thousands of veterans who served this country faithfully who are now suffering illnesses, some fatal, directly due to being exposed to harmful substances during the war.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 109:4
Gary Chenett and Robert Baker award veterans with The Silver Rose. To date over one thousand veterans have received this award. Sadly, many of these awards have been made posthumously. October is now recognized as Agent Orange month in Texas and many other states. On behalf of Texas, I thank our brave patriots for their sacrifices.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 110

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
October 17, 2003

!TITLE:
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to this request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have being shipped away on a foreign welfare program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be crippling.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:2
Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because “we must succeed” in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this have yet to define what it means – in concrete terms – to have “success” in Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will “success” take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice-sounding platitudes.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:3
We have established a troubling precedent that no matter how ill-conceived an intervention, we must continue to become more deeply involved because “we must succeed.” That is one reason we see unrelated funding in this supplemental for places like Liberia and Sudan.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:4
Mr. Speaker this reconstruction of Iraq – that we are making but a down-payment on today – is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to “rebuild” Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted - as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various “non-government organizations” that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the “right” way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we’re in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for "women’s leadership programs" (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the "U.S. share" of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles).


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:5
There has been some discontent among conservatives about the $20 billion reconstruction price tag. They fail to realize that this is just the other side of the coin of military interventionism. It is the same coin, which is why I have consistently opposed foreign interventionism. There is a lesson here that those who call themselves fiscal conservatives seem to not have learned. There is no separation between the military intervention and the post-military intervention, otherwise known as “nation-building.” Fiscal conservatives are uneasy about nation building and foreign aid. The president himself swore off nation building as a candidate. But anyone concerned about sending American tax dollars to foreign countries must look directly at military interventionism abroad. If there is one thing the history of our interventionism teaches, it is that the best way for a foreign country to become a financial dependent of the United States is to first be attacked by the United States.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:6
This request - which was not the first and will not be the last - demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq – its schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the American people want?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:7
The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a “Marshall Plan” afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and “global planners.” What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq’s economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:8
There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq and bankrupting many of our reservists and National Guard troops by unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment is hardly “supporting the troops.” Perhaps that is why a Stars and Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:9
Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:10
I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the US, those who were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan - a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:11
Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts to paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime – not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam’s regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq’s one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the US intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 110:12
Mr. Speaker, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will not produce favorable results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however. The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this supplemental request.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 111

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq

!DATE:
17 October 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to spend a little bit of time this evening talking about the bill that we spent 3 days debating. That is the $87 billion appropriations bill that we just voted on and passed, not so much that I want to rehash what we did during these 3 days as much as to make a point that we ought to be debating something other than the technicality of how to spend $87 billion of the taxpayers’ money. And that has to do with overall policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:2
I think so rarely we deal with policy and we deal only with technicality and accounting and an attempt made at oversight. So I would like to spend a little bit of time emphasizing a different type of foreign policy that we have become unaccustomed to. Because there was an American foreign policy once well known to us, to our country and especially to our founders, a policy of nonintervention. Today, and essentially for a hundred years, we have been following a policy of foreign intervention, that is, that we assume more than I believe we should overseas. And I object to that because I see it as not gaining a constitutional mandate as well as I see it as being a great danger to us both in the area of national defense, national security, as well as the economic dangers it presents.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:3
The debate has ended, it is said, with this vote; but in many ways I think the debate is only really getting started. The debate has been going on a long time dealing with Iraq.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:4
It did not even start after 9–11. It is true within weeks after 9–11 the Project for New American Century saw this as an opportunity to bring forth their suggestions that they had made many years ago, and they have been agitating forth for over 10 years, and that is to go into Iraq; and they saw this as an opportunity. But actually, this debate has been going on even a lot longer. Certainly since the first Iraqi war in 1990 and the persistence of our bombing of Iraq, as well as the embargo and boycotts of Iraq served to do a lot of internal damage to the Iraqi people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:5
But the debate, instead of ending, I think is really just starting. Because the vote today, although it was overwhelmingly in support of the $87 billion, I noticed a lot more people in the Congress voted against the appropriations reflecting probably the views of many taxpayers in this country who are very reluctant to spend this kind of money overseas, especially if they perceive what we are doing is not being very productive. And not only do we have to deal with whether or not what we are doing is productive or not, but the final analysis will be, can we afford it?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:6
It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:7
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was capable of fighting or invading anybody. There was no resistance and he had been shooting at our airplanes for over 12 years and never hit one of them. To assume he was a threat to the world was, I think, overblown. Those are the reasons why I so strongly objected to it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:8
Now, the argument goes that whether or not we supported the war at the beginning, we should support the troops now. The troops are there and if you vote against the appropriations, it means that you lack support for the troops. Well, this is not true; and those who argue that case know it is the case, that it is not true because the funding that is already in the pipeline is certainly enough for several months of leaving and coming home. And so that argument just does not hold water. And besides, if you really talk to the troops, and now we are getting so much more information from the troops, if you ask them whether there is somebody in the Congress that votes to have them come home, whether that indicates a lack of support for them, I think you would get a very clear answer. Probably a very large number, if not all of them, would like to come home tomorrow and they do not see a lot of benefit by the sacrifices that are being made over there. But I think if the support for the war is weak, why are we there? What drives us? And what drives our foreign policy?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:9
Basically, we have come to the acceptance, at least especially throughout the 20th century, of accepting the notion that we have some moral obligation to make the world safe for democracy. And we have heard so much about this that we are over there to spread democracy. Well, if you look to the Constitution, there is no grant of authority even to the Congress or to the President that that should be a goal. That does not mean that our values should not be looked upon and spread; but to be done through the military and by force, that is an entirely different story.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:10
What we are involved here now with our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, we are involved in nation-building. And nobody in this country campaigns, whether it is for the Presidency or for a congressional seat or a Senate seat, nobody goes out and says, Elect me to Congress because I want to get into the business of nation- building. Nobody does that and yet really that is what we are talking about today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:11
We are very much involved in nationbuilding in Afghanistan, and the successes there are very shaky. We probably occupy one city and not much more. And everybody reads daily about the shakiness of our occupation of Iraq. And we are very much involved in internal affairs of other nations, the kind of thing our founders said do not get involved in. Do not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Stay out of entangling alliances. And we are very much involved. The entangling alliance that I had the strongest objection to is the entangling alliance with the United Nations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:12
So although it was seen by the world that we went into Iraq by defying the United Nations, if anybody would like to check and go back and look at the authorization for the use of force which was a transfer, illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war, the United Nations was cited 16 times. There was a need to enforce the United Nations resolution. That was the justification for the Congress to transfer this power to the President in allowing him to make his own decision.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:13
Well, that is technically flaunting the Constitution and that the proper method for us going to war is for the Congress to declare war, and then, of course, go out and win the war. But the authority comes from the people to the Congress and the Congress cannot transfer this power and this decisionmaking to the President under a majority vote in the legislative body.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:14
There have been others, in particular the neo-conservatives who have been very influential in foreign policy the last several years and who have been associated with the Project for a New American Century. They have been explicit in their goals. And one of their explicit goals has been to redraw the lines of the Middle East and to have preemptive regime change. These are serious beliefs that they have; and everybody has a right to their beliefs. Their beliefs that we have this obligation to remove regimes that we do not like and to redraw lines and to spread our way of life and our democracy by the use of force, they sincerely hold those beliefs; and I sincerely disagree with them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:15
But I believe that the Constitution is on my side and not on their side. And when we do what they want and what we have done and have been doing, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to our security. It is dangerous to our financial situation and our economy. And it is a tremendous drain on so many taxpayers here trying to struggle and make a living.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:16
There are others who influence our policy, and it is not the conspiracy buffs that had coined the phrase “the military industrial complex.” And everybody knows where that phrase came from. But it is alive and well. Believe me, it is alive and well. There is a tremendous amount of influence by those who make profits, refurbishing the weapons they get, rebuilding the bombs, rebuilding the airplanes and lining up at the trough to see how they will get to participate in this $87 billion that has just been recently appropriated.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:17
This is one of the reasons why I think the debate just in these last couple of days on whether or not the money would be a loan or a grant really did not have a whole lot of merit. I happen to have supported all the amendments that said it should be a loan, not a grant, but it does not make a bit of difference because the likelihood of a country like Iraq, that does not have a government, being able to make a promise and then pay us back, we generally never get paid back anything. So that to me was a red-herring argument that was sort of one of the tactical or accounting arguments that occupied a tremendous amount of time here by avoiding the bigger issue on whether or not it is a proper role for the United States to be telling the rest of the world how to live and it is our obligation to nation-build and our obligation to redraw the lines of the Middle East. That is the bigger question, and this is the debate I hope to hear that we have on this floor some day.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:18
The policy of interventionism, I think it is dangerous as instead of reducing the odds of a terrorist attack, I believe it increases the odds of a terrorist attack. When I see us occupying Saudi Arabia, having an air base on land which is considered holy land, occupying the Persian Gulf that has a lot of oil, and it has been said we are there to protect our oil, that it would be equivalent to the Chinese coming in to the Gulf of Mexico and saying we do not have enough oil. And if they happen to be stronger and that they could come over and say, well, we are more powerful, we need imports, we are going to protect our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we will have our Navy in the Gulf of Mexico, and if we need to we are going to put air bases in Florida and Texas and wherever. And then if the Chinese come in and say, well, your way of life is not our way of life, and we should teach you a better system, that is what I see as being equivalent to us being in the Persian Gulf occupying the Arab lands, and especially, now, Afghanistan and Iraq.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:19
In other words, no matter how well-intended those individuals are who drive our foreign policy and drive these expenditures and drive our military around the world, no matter how wellintended under these circumstances, if what I am saying is correct, there is no way it is going to work, and the sooner we admit it and the sooner we discover it is not going to work, the better it is for all of us and the less killing that is going to occur.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:20
So I am strongly suggesting that we here in the House someday get serious about talking about the big picture, the strategic picture, the philosophic picture and the Constitution, deciding what we really should be doing in our foreign policy. Some people say, well, it sounds to me like what you are advocating is isolationism, and nobody wants to be an isolationist. When they throw that term out, it is usually done there to try to discredit those individuals, like myself, who are arguing the case for nonintervention. Isolationism is quite a bit different. Isolationism is those who want to put barriers on trade and travel in exchange of ideas. That is true isolationism. That is mercantilism and protectionism. That is not what I am talking about, and that is not what nonintervention is.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:21
Nonintervention in foreign policy means we do not impose our will on other people, something that a lot of very conventional politicians have talked about for years as a matter of fact, especially when they are campaigning.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:22
I would like to quote from the memoirs of George Bush, Senior, which he wrote, and they were published approximately 5 years ago, dealing with Iraq and what he thought about it, about the invasion of Iraq and why he did not go into Iraq. This comes from A World Transformed. This is George Bush, Senior. He says, Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post- Cold War period. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:23
That comes from George Bush, Senior. That is not coming from me, who has always had great concern about our military activity. I think that is sound thinking and sound advice, totally ignored.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:24
In the campaign before the last Presidential election, our President said, If we are an arrogant Nation, they will resent us. If we are a humble Nation but strong, they will believe us. If we are a humble Nation, they will respect us as an honorable Nation.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:25
I think we have lost a little bit of our humility, to say the least, and, as of now, I do not think that our reputation has been enhanced, especially in the Arab-Muslim world, and that concerns me because it is this lack of civility between countries and the antagonism which leads to conflicts and hatreds and killing and guerrilla wars which we are fighting right now.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:26
I express my concern about the way we went to war because it was a transfer of power from the Congress by mere vote, which circumvented the Constitution, rather than a declaration of war, and I base my concern on the fact that we have had a lot more trouble in the last 50 years when we quit declaring war and at least prior to that the wars we declared, they came to an end.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:27
Look at Korea. We did not declare war there. We went there under a U.N. resolution. We are still there. We spent over $1 trillion, and we are still in conflict with North Korea, and it is a serious problem, and we do not trade with them.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:28
Going into Vietnam, we went once again into Vietnam without a declaration of war. It really came to no resolution other than the fact that we walked away. We had to get out because we were not winning. The determination to win was not there because the Vietnamese were not a threat to our national security. Nobody was going to declare war, but look at the difference.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:29
We are still in North Korea. That was under a U.N. resolution, and just look at what has been achieved by leaving Vietnam. They have become Westernized and, to a degree, capitalized. They are more capitalistic. We trade with them, making the point that it is very, very hard to impose our will and our system of values on somebody with the use of arms, but by the willingness of trade and exchanges with people and ideas, they are more likely to come in our direction. So the difference between the 10 terrible years in the 1960s, as we lost 60,000 men and achieved nothing, compared to the next decade or two, how we have become more friends with the Vietnamese, there is a powerful message there if we would listen to it and pay attention to it, but no, since that time we have continued to go into many areas.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:30
I think this was a problem going into Iraq in 1990. It was an undeclared war. It was a U.N. war. It did not end it. It continued and it is still continuing into its 15th year, and here we are still arguing over the financing which I think is at very early stages. How long will we be there and how many men are going to die and how is it going to end? I am convinced as long as we follow this principle of foreign interventionism that we take it upon ourselves to spread democracy around the world, we are going to be running into trouble like this.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:31
James Madison early on in 1798 gave us some advice about the Presidential power and congressional power to go to war, but he was explaining why it was important to keep it in the hands of the legislative body. He says, The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:32
That is what our Constitution did, but because now it has drifted from the legislature, we allow our Presidents to do more than they should be able to do, and then we allow them to incorporate this into United Nations’ mandates. It means that the people have lost their control.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:33
How do the people stay involved in this? In one way, they pay the bills and the young people die. That is what is at stake. Our economy’s at stake, our young people are at stake and our freedoms are at stake because we allow the prerogatives that were explicitly given to the Congress to drift away and get into the hands of the executive branch and into the United Nations. We do not declare war. We do not win them. They persist, they last a long time, and this is the reason why we should really and truly talk about how do we get out of this mess, instead of just expanding the mess, how do we get out and restore a policy that makes a lot more sense.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:34
The famous General, General Douglas MacArthur, who knew a lot about war, also had advice to us about how to handle the issue of war, and he said, The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a conscious stampede of patriotic fervor, with a cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:35
Here is a man who knew about World War I, World War II and Korea, and he was suggesting that they were overblown.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:36
One thing that we did not talk about in the debate of the $87 billion was a $600 million appropriation. It is not written in there explicitly, but there is a $9.3 billion authority to transfer funds over into the Pentagon and more or less having a slush fund to spend just about any way they want without any significant congressional oversight, but the $600 million has been asked for and will be achieved through this appropriation to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. They have spent $300 million for six months, with 1,200 individuals combing the entire country of Iraq, and nothing has been found. So typically, American style, modern America, that is, double the amount of money, double the number of people and keep searching, because something will be found.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:37
My answer is, what if you do find something? What does it prove? Does it prove that he was a threat to our national security? No way. Does it prove that it was a relationship to Iraq and 9/ 11? No way. So this obsession is for saving face and nothing more. If there was a major nuclear or chemical weapon available that was about to be unleashed against us, it would have surely been found by now, but that was not debated, but I am sure that search will go on, and “when something is found,” and I put that in quotes, there will be a lot of questions asked. More questions will be asked than answers given.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:38
I guess early this week we also had another vote that emphasizes my concerns, because it again is going in the wrong direction, and that was the vote we had on Syria. A couple of us voted against this. Syria is a hard country to defend, and I am not going to defend Syria. I am defending the Constitution, and I am defending nonintervention, but the Syrian resolution was more or less the first major step in the direction of war against Syria.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:39
This is exactly what the project for a new America century wants. Syria is on their list and the sanctions put on Syria are essentially a prelude to war because that country, as part of the axis of evil, we have to get rid of that regime and they are helping the Iraqis so, therefore, war is coming, and I just cannot see how the average American is sitting around worrying about the Syrians, but they said the Syrians, there may be some people going back and forth from Syria and participating in the guerrilla war in Iraq, which may well be true, but then again, what about other borders?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:40
There is a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s on our side, Afghanistan is half and half, but right on that border is Osama bin Laden most likely.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:41
And he is probably in Pakistan. So do we decide that we have to go after Pakistan? No, we recognize that the borders are uncontrollable.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:42
Here we are putting sanctions on Syria because we do not like the way they are handling their borders, but there are a lot of people in this country who would like to see us do a better job with our own borders. We do not have control of our own borders, yet here we are putting on sanctions and initiating another step towards war against Syria because we are not satisfied with what they are doing.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:43
We cannot achieve some of these goals that we have set for ourselves through force. We have what comes close to an obsession with democracy. You hear it constantly. We are over in Iraq because we are going to make it a democracy. Well, democratic elections are the way we all get here; but this obsession with democracy, well, democracy means there is a ruling of the majority. But what if the majority does not support freedom?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:44
I would like to see a time come to this place where we talk a lot less about democracy and more about liberty. Liberty is where the minority is protected. Under democracy, the majority is protected, and they can obliterate the minority. And this, in a sense, is what we keep talking about. But let us say they do not want democracy. Are we going to force it upon them? It looks like that is our goal; that we will, by gosh, force them into it if we have to.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:45
I have come to the conclusion that you cannot achieve this through the force of arms and that if you are participating in an unwelcome occupation, you cannot change a culture, you cannot change religious values, you cannot change a legal system. We would not accept the Chinese trying to tell us to live like the Chinese; and we are just as strange and different in Iraq as the Chinese would be here. So even with this grand motivation, it is a lost cause; and the sooner we own up to it, the better.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:46
If we want Iraq and other countries to act more like we do, it can be done; and that should be a goal. But there is a difference. There are two different ways we can do it. One, we can force people to do things and the other way is we can try to talk them into doing it in a voluntary fashion. If we did an exceptionally good job and we had a truly prosperous economy, which I believe a free market would achieve, which we do not have, where the greatest number of people would have the greatest benefits, truly set an example, have democratic elections but obey a constitution that is designed to protect liberty and protect minorities, if we set an example, then I sincerely believe others then would be more inclined to emulate us and to see us as an example.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:47
In a way, what happened in Vietnam, the achievement there without the Army was far better than the losses that occurred when we were trying to use force. But I just am worried about what is happening. I am worried about the expenditures. I am worried that the guerilla war is going to spread. I am concerned because I believe so sincerely that our policy of foreign intervention serves more to incite terrorists against our country than we will calm down by our being over there.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:48
I am convinced that these articles that now appear in the media about the al Qaeda now having an easier time recruiting, I believe those stories. I believe them. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not want to get into that issue, but I believe they are true. And that is a practical reason why nonintervention is so much better than intervention. Intervention leads to trouble, and it leads to expenditures. It leads to debt.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:49
It is such a grand idea that the Founding Fathers gave us about nonintervention and nonentangling alliances. It will do more to serve the cause of peace and prosperity than any other single change of any policy we could have here in this Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:50
I am a little bit encouraged, though, about the fact that the debate may be shifting. In the Congress, not yet. Not yet. There are not too many supporters, and I know that, for nonintervention, for a constitutional foreign policy, to looking to the Founders. It is considered old-fashioned, and that truths do not stay so static, and times are different, and we have this obligation, and all the reasons why we have this moral obligation to go about the world. But where I am encouraged is outside of this place, where the American people are getting concerned.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:51
I would bet if we had a referendum in this country today with this $87 billion, I will tell you where I think that vote would have come down. I bet the American people would not have voted for it. I am convinced of that. But just yesterday, there was an announcement of a group that has organized that I find very fascinating and very encouraging. This group is called Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:52
I have a copy of their statement of principles. More than 100 individuals are involved, mostly professors and other academicians and think-tank people. I do not know if there are any politicians in there. Hopefully, no politicians will be involved. But this is important. This is important because they want to get together and try to change the tone and the nature of the debate. Now, are they liberals or are they conservatives? Are they libertarian or are they constitutionalists? All of them. It is a mixture. They do not want just the liberal flavor or just the right-wing conservative flavor. It is anybody who is willing to sit down and talk about the disadvantage, the practical disadvantage of this road to empire and why we come up on the short end and that this moral obligation of us policing the world really is not a wise idea.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:53
I want to read a little bit from their statement of principles. It says: “We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately. The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum with new interventions begetting new dangers, and thus the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans, especially those whose sons and daughters are or will be sent into harm’s way, don’t really favor.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:54
“The American people have not embraced the idea of the American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the founders’ frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of freedoms at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of the people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:55
“There are ominous signs that the strategy of empire has already begun to erode our fundamental rights and liberties. More and more power is being claimed by the executive branch. And on the economic front,” which is important in my argument, “on the economic front, an imperial strategy threatens to weaken us as a Nation, overextending and bleeding the economy and straining our military and Federal budgets.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:56
Further reading on from the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy: “The defenders of empire assert that the horrific acts of terrorism on September 11 demand that we assume new financial burdens to fund an expensive national security strategy, relax our commitment to individual liberty at home, and discard our respect for stated sovereignty abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Following 9– 11, we should have refocused our attention on the very threats facing us in the 21st century. As a nation, we must not allow the events of 9–11 to be used as a pretext for reshaping American foreign policy in a manner inconsistent with our traditions and values and contrary to our interests.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:57
And that is basically a brief outline of the principles of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:58
We have been told by some of our leaders that standing up for good against evil is very hard work and it costs a lot of money and blood, but they have gone on to say we are willing to pay. These are the politicians. This has been true for thousands of years. The politicians are always grandiose in their goals and their schemes and their plans for what they think is best for the world, and they are always willing to pay with dollars and blood.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:59
But the politician never pays. Politicians here on the floor who are so anxious to go, many of them have not served, and many of them would not be very anxious to be serving over there. It is the politicians who promote the wars that rarely serve. The only way that anybody on this floor should ever vote to send our troops into harm’s way is they should look at it in a very personal way. They should look at it in the sense of what would it be like if I would go there and I would be carrying a rifle on the front line, or I would be a target for some sniper. Do I want to be there? Is it worth that? Or would I send my son to do that, or would I send my grandson or my granddaughter to that type of danger?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:60
It has to be personalized. Because if it is just, oh, we are willing to pay. Where does the money come from? We are flat-out broke. We have had the biggest deficit ever. Our dollar is going down on the market, and we are now assuming more liabilities. When we spend $87 billion in Iraq, that is literally taken out of our economy. Imagine how many jobs and how much improvement on the standard of living of Americans could occur with $87 billion, and at the same time believe sincerely that a policy of nonintervention would be the best policy for peace and prosperity.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:61
I do not know how anybody could reject that policy. It is fantastic. It is the policy of free people. It is not the policy of empire. It is not the policy of imperialism.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:62
But I am going to win this argument. Not because I am persuasive. I will win this argument that we have gone too far and have overextended. Sadly, I will win this argument because we are going to go broke. Because all great nations who believe that they can spread their will around the world, they always overextend; and then it virtually always leads to the debasement of the currency.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:63
In the old days, they deluded the metal or clipped the coins. Today, it is more sophisticated, because we run up the debt, we send it over to the Fed, and they print the money. But that is debasing the currency, and it undermines the standard of living, already occurring with people on fixed incomes. So it will finally come to a halt, just as our intervention in Vietnam finally came to a sad halt. It did end. But the rest will come to an end when we can no longer afford it.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:64
We should have greater faith and greater confidence in freedom. Freedom works. And that was the message of the Founders. That is the message of the Constitution. But we have lost our confidence. We have lost our way. We cannot even have one single problem exist throughout the country without coming here for another law.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 111:65
I think it is time that free people gain some confidence, believing sincerely that we will all be better off, we will all be more prosperous, we will all be much freer, and we will all be much safer. And then, when we achieve that, then I believe other countries of the world will have a stronger desire to emulate us, rather than hate us.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 112

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Congratulations On LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club’s 75th Anniversary

!DATE:
21 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 21, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club on the occasion of their 75th anniversary. Since its founding, the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club has been a cornerstone of charitable service to its community. I am therefore pleased to submit this proclamation honoring the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 112:2
CONGRESSIONAL PROCLAMATION, LA GRANGE
NOON LION’S CLUB 75TH ANNIVERSARY
Whereas, the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club serves the citizens of LaGrange, Fayette County, the great state of Texas and the United States of America, AND


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 112:3
Whereas, the La Grange Noon Lion’s Club gives of their time freely for the betterment of mankind, having a membership of anonymous individual philanthropists, AND


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 112:4
Whereas, the International Association of Lion’s Clubs all over the world offer charitable hope to the blind, provide services for youth, disabled and victims of disaster, of which the Noon Lion’s Club is a subsidiary


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 112:5
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and the Constituents of District 14 in Texas, I, Representative Ron Paul, do hereby proclaim October 12–18, 2003 the 75th Anniversary Week of the La Grange Noon Lions Club.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 113

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Congress Shouldn’t Censor Foreign Leaders

!DATE:
28 October 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise with great concerns over this legislation — both over its content and what it represents. First, I think it is absurd that the U.S. Congress believes it has the responsibility and authority to rectify the inappropriate statements of individuals in foreign countries. Have we moved beyond meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries — as bad as that is — to even meddling in the very thoughts and words of foreign leaders and citizens? It is the obligation of the U.S. Congress to correct the “wrong thoughts” of others that have nothing to do with the United States? Additionally, is it our place to demand that other sovereign states, such as the members of the European Union, react as we say they must to certain international events?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:2
More troubling than what is stated in this legislation, however, is the kind of thinking that this approach represents. The purpose of this legislation is to punish inappropriate thoughts and speech — to free debate on difficult topics and issues. In this, it contains a whiff of totalitarian thinking. This legislation advances the disturbing idea that condemnatory speech that does not explicitly incite violence is nevertheless inherently dangerous. It asserts that even debating controversial topics inevitably leads to violence. This is absurd on its face: it is only debate that leads us to come to understandings over controversial topics without violence. That is why nations engage in diplomacy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:3
Those who feel aggrieved over an issue can either broach the issue through discussion and debate or they can attempt to address the grievance through the barrel of a gun. Which is preferable? I think the answer is self-evident. Once persuasion is taken from the realm of possibility, the only approach left to address grievances is violence.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:4
Is the prime minister of Malaysia wrong in his statements? Debate him. Invite him to one of the various multilateral gatherings with someone who disagrees with him and have a debate and discussion over the issue. This approach is much more likely to result in a peaceful resolution of the dispute than what we are doing here: a blanket condemnation and a notice that certain difficult issues are not subject to any inappropriate thoughts or statements. This is chilling for a nation that prides itself on its tradition of protecting even the most distasteful of speech.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:5
Dr. Mahathir has long been known for his statements on the Middle East. His views are no secret. Yet even President Bush, who invited Prime Minister Mahathir to Washington in May, 2003, chose the path of debate over blanket condemnation. President Bush said at a joint press conference that, “we’ll also talk about the Middle East, and I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister on the Middle East. So we’ll have a good discussion.” Abandoning our beliefs and traditions — especially those regarding the right to hold and express even abhorrent thoughts and ideas — when it comes to our foreign relations is hardly the best way to show the rest of the world the strength of our system and way of life.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:6
A careful reading of the prime minister’s speech did not find any explicit calls for violence. Actually, Dr. Mahathir called for Muslims around the world to cease using violence to seek their goals. He stated, “is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?” Also, he advises against “revenge” attacks and urges Muslims to “win [the] hearts and minds” of non-Muslims including “Jews...who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.” While we may agree or disagree with the cause that Dr. Mahathir espouses, the fact that he calls for non-violent means to achieve his goals is to be commended rather than condemned. This is not to agree with every aspect of his address — and certainly not to agree with some of the ridiculous statements contained therein — but rather to caution against the kind of blanket condemnation that this legislation represents. Do we not also agree with his words that Muslim violence in the Middle East has been counterproductive? President Bush himself in May invited Dr. Mahathir to the White House to, in the president’s words, “publicly thank the Prime Minister for his strong support in the war against terror.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 113:7
I strongly believe that we need to get out of the business of threatening people over what they think and say and instead trust that our own principles, freedom and liberty, can win out in the marketplace of ideas over bigotry and hate. When the possibility of persuasion is abandoned, the only recourse for the aggrieved is violence. Haven’t we seen enough of this already?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 114

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Expressing Gratitude To Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces Deployed In Operation Restore Hope In Somalia In 1993

!DATE:
28 October 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 28, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of this legislation because I do believe it is important to express our gratitude to our armed forces, and particularly to remember those who lost their lives in Somalia in Operation Restore Hope. Indeed, members of our armed forces have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in this post Cold War era, as US military presence across the globe has, despite what many of us hoped, increased significantly and military deployments into hostile situations have also increased.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 114:2
Mr. Speaker, while I do want to join those praising members of our armed forces, I must point out that legislation like H. Con. Res. 291 is dishonest and actually disrespectful to our military. It is obvious that praising the soldiers is only one small part of this legislation. Under cover of this praise is an attempt to re-write history and to praise a foreign policy that sends our military into useless and meaningless battle zones, like Somalia, where they are asked to fight and die for a cause completely unrelated to the US national interest. It is shameful for legislators to wrap themselves in the sacrifice of our troops in praise of a policy that does not serve the United States and ends up getting these same troops killed and maimed.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 114:3
The legislation states, falsely, that our failed Somali nation-building fiasco was somehow related to the war against terrorism. This attempt at revisionist history is more than dishonest: it is likely interventions like these actually increased resentment of the US and may have even led to more recruits to terrorist organizations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 114:4
This legislation expresses gratitude for our troops’ “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993.” I see nowhere in our Constitution a provision that allows the United States armed forces to be used for the purpose of “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance” to any foreign country or people. Our armed forces are to be used in defense of our homeland. Period. So I am deeply disturbed by legislation such as this. Yes, we must honor troops, but we cannot honor a foreign policy that sends them into harm’s way for “nation-building” or “humanitarian assistance” or any other reason not directly related to the defense of the United States. I hope the next time we see legislation congratulating the brave service of our armed forces it is more honest. Our servicemembers deserve at least this, do they not?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 115

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms

!DATE:
29 october 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 29, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I am concerned about the loss of jobs in America’s manufacturing sector and the role currency manipulation plays in that loss. For many years, I have warned my colleagues that America’s monetary policy is endangering America’s economy. The economic difficulties currently facing this country are a classic example of the harm resulting from a boom-andbust cycle caused by an inflationary monetary policy. An open debate on monetary issues is therefore long overdue.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:2
However, instead of debating America’s monetary policy, we are debating China’s monetary policy. Specifically, the goal of this resolution is to pressure China to change the valuation of its currency. Whatever short-term benefit our manufacturers may gain from this action, the policies urged today are not in the long-term interest of the American people.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:3
In arguing for fluctuating rates, the backers of H. Res. 414 are demanding that the Chinese Government adopt an irrational policy. A sound economy requires a sound and dependable unit of economic measurement. Yet, by definition, under fluctuating rates the currency, which serves as the basic unit of economic measurement, will not be sound and dependable. Instead, that value will change depending on the whims of politicians and the perceived economic needs of politically powerful special interests.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:4
China, in fact, has done very well with a fixed measurement of value. China’s economic growth rate is high; China is also exporting many products into our market while our domestic producers are suffering. Therefore, China makes a good scapegoat for our economic problems. Demanding that the Chinese government adjust its currency is a convenient distraction from addressing the real economic problems facing our country.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:5
Instead of having fluctuating currency exchange rates and the inevitable instability that accompanies them, we should be working to establish a gold-backed currency whose value is determined by the market. This would provide an objective measurement of the value of economic goods and services and thus strengthen the economy by freeing it from the negative effects of our unstable monetary policy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:6
I would also urge my colleagues to consider the benefits we receive from our relationship with China. Of course, consumers benefit from lower-priced goods. Adopting the policy urged by supporters of this bill would cause consumer prices to increase, thus reducing consumers wealth. Other producers would suffer as a result of the consumers decreased purchasing power. — While there is not an organized lobby arguing against the-policy recommendations of H. Res. 414, I doubt many of our constituents want us to increase the prices they pay for goods and services.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:7
Congress should also consider how the Chinese benefit the United States Government by holding our debt. The dollars the Chinese acquire by selling us goods and services must be returned to the United States. Since the Chinese are not buying an equivalent amount of American goods and services, they are using the dollars to finance our extravagant spending.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:8
In fact, Mr. Speaker, our ability to continue to fund the welfare-warfare state without destroying the American economy depends on foreigners buying our debt. Perhaps we should think twice before we start bullying and browbeating our foreign creditors to change their economic or other polices to our liking.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:9
H. Res. 414’s underlying premise is that sovereign countries have a duty to fashion economic policies that benefit the United States and it is a proper concern of Congress if these countries fail to do so. H. Res. 414 attempts to justify Congressional interference in the internal economic affairs of China by claiming that China is not living up to its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I would remind my colleagues that the WTO has oftentimes ruled against the United States and Congress is right now changing United States tax laws to please the WTO. Ceding control over United States tax and trade policy to this international organization violates the United States Constitution and is contrary to the interests of American citizens. Therefore, it is not wise to endorse the WTO process by encouraging other countries to submit to WTO control.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:10
Instead of promoting global economic government, the United States Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers’ competitiveness. Recently, a financial journalist visited with businessmen who are launching new enterprises in China. When he asked them why they chose to invest in China, they answered: “It is so much easier to start a business in China than in the United States, especially in places like Massachusetts and California.” This answer should send a clear message to every lawmaker in America: the taxes and regulations imposed on American businesses are damaging economic growth and killing jobs. If we were serious about creating jobs, we would be working on an aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and repealing needless regulations.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:11
Congress can also improve America’s competitive position by ending the practice of forcing American workers to subsidize their foreign competitors through organizations such as the Export-Import Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I have introduced the Steel Financing Fairness Act (H.R. 3072) to accomplish this goal. H.R. 3072 prevents taxpayer funds from being sent to countries, such as China, that subsidize their steel industries. Of course, our ultimate goal should be to end all taxpayer subsidies of foreign corporations and governments.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 115:12
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that stability in currencies is something we should seek, not something we should condemn Instead of urging China to adopt a floating rate, Congress should be working to adopt a stable, commodity-backed currency whose value is determined by the market and encourage other countries to also adopt a market-based currency. This will benefit American workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. Congress should also strengthen America’s economy by reducing taxes and repealing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations and stop forcing American taxpayers to subsidize their foreign competitors.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 116

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Conference Report On H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Yeas 2004

!DATE:
7 November 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, November 7, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to see that this conference report has addressed the issue of concurrent receipt, I note with dismay that the provision as included in the report is inadequate. It will leave hundreds of thousands of veterans out in the cold, many of whom will likely not live long enough to benefit from this unacceptable pseudo-solution.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 116:2
This provision will allow only those 20-year retiree combat-disabled veterans to receive concurrent receipt, which completely ignores that many if not most soldiers who are combat- disabled do not remain in the military for 20 years. Upon becoming disabled they are discharged from the military. This means that, according to some estimates, two-thirds of disabled veterans will be left behind by this provision. In this, the provision is a slap in the face of our veterans.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 116:3
Additionally, the 10 year phase-in of concurrent receipt for the remaining who are at least 50 percent disabled effectively means that thousands of our veterans — particularly those of the World War II and Korea generations — will not live to receive this earned and deserved benefit.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 116:4
Mr. Speaker, we need to make our veterans and our soldiers our top priority. We have entered into a contract with each of them. They have done their part and are doing their part every day — in conflicts across the globe including the increasingly deadly Iraq occupation. We must keep our end of the contract. I am sad to note that provisions like this watered- down concurrent receipt are not in keeping with our end of the contract.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 116:5
I also must object to the procedure in bringing this conference report to the Floor. We were once again given only hours to read a conference report that ran hundreds and hundreds of pages. This is a disturbing pattern that seems to surface when we are required to vote on controversial legislation. Are Members not anymore supposed to at least review legislation before voting?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 117

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Redrawing Coastal Barrier Resources Map

!DATE:
17 November 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1066, the Senate version of my H.R. 154, which I introduced on the first day of the 108th Congress. This legislation fixes a mistake in the official Fish and Wildlife Services’ maps by removing a 19-acre area known as Matagorda Dunes, in Matagorda County, Texas, from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources Act (COBRA). This change is fully supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, a Fish and Wildlife Service created map, dated July 12, 2002, acknowledges the error.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 117:2
This change will ensure property owners who had already begun developing this area are able to obtain insurance. Congress never intended to deny these landowners access to insurance. Matagorda Dunes was included in COBRA as a result of a drafting error when the COBRA maps were revised in the early eighties. Unless this mistake is fixed, the result could be catastrophic for these property owners who invested in developing Matagorda Dunes under the belief that the land was excluded from COBRA. A failure to fix this mistake could also be quite costly to the American taxpayers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 117:3
Fixing this mistake is also quite important to the people of Matagorda County, which is why a county official traveled to Washington to testify at a hearing on this bill in September. In conclusion, I thank Chairman POMBO and my colleague from Texas, Senator HUTCHISON, for their work on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 117:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 118

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Best Energy Policy Is The Free Market

!DATE:
18 November 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again voting to take our Nation further down the path toward a system of centralized Federal planning of our energy supply. The very notion of a national energy policy is collectivist; it assumes that an energy supply would not exist without a government plan. Yet basic economics teaches us that nothing could be further from the truth.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:2
The best energy policy is the free market! Energy is no different than any other commodity — free market, competition produces the most efficient allocation of resources. In a true free market, conservation of scarce energy resources occurs naturally. When coal, natural gas, or other nonrenewable sources are depleted, the price goes up. When alternative energy sources like wind and solar become economically feasible, demand for such sources arises naturally. There is always a natural market for clean and cheap energy. Only an unregulated free market creates the environment that allows critical technological innovation to flourish, innovation that holds the key to cheaper and cleaner energy.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:3
The approach we take today, however, distorts the market and favors certain industries and companies at the expense of American taxpayers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:4
It’s always the same old story in Washington: instead of allowing the free market to work, Congress regulates, subsidizes, and taxes an industry, and when inevitable problems arise, the free market is blamed! The solution is always more Federal intervention; no one suggests that too much Federal involvement created the problems in the first place.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:5
Let me provide just a few examples of the most egregious, wasteful spending measures and corporate subsidies contained in this legislation: It spends even more than the President requested; it provides $90 million in subsidies for hydroelectric power plants; it provides $500 million for research and development of Biomass; it authorizes almost $2 billion for the Energy Department to do what the private sector would if it was profitable — develop hydrogen cars; it allows FERC to use eminent domain to ride roughshod over State and local governments; it increases failed ethanol subsidies to favored agribusiness companies, while providing liability protection for those companies; it requires States to reduce energy consumption by 25 percent in 2010, including States with growing populations like Texas; it forces taxpayers to guarantee loans for pipeline projects, despite the easy availability of cheap credit; it spends $20 million for the Labor Department to recruit and train Alaskan employees to build a new pipeline; and it authorizes the Energy Department to create efficiency standards for vending machines!


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 118:6
Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the usual pork, subsidies, protectionism, and regulations that already distort our energy markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this terrible bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 119

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Don’t Meddle With Religion In Vietnam

!DATE:
19 November 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill-timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Yet are we not doing that today — albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of “religious freedom”? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to “closely monitor” religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam’s leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 120

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Advancing Religious Freedom Worldwide Not Our Job

!DATE:
19 November 2003


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation but want to make it clear that I am not doing so because I oppose religious freedom, as one might falsely conclude from the way this bill is crafted. My concerns with this bill are the same concerns I raise whenever Congress attempts to act in areas in which it has no constitutional authority: under the guise of promoting a laudable cause — religious freedom — this legislation seeks to impose our views of this topic on other sovereign nations. In short, it is yet another example of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 120:2
Mr. Speaker, as Americans we have a special attachment to the idea of religious freedom. That is the reason many of our ancestors came to this land and fought for independence. But I don’t think the way to advance religious freedom around the world is to demand that every country adopt our approach. I believe that so demanding will only engender ill-will toward the United States and, ironically, increased resistance to this idea. People generally to not like being told by foreign countries what to do or how they can worship. I believe the best way we can promote the idea of religious liberty abroad is to serve as a working, living example of the benefits of liberty. The United States has been admired historically in other countries because our system of government demonstrates the economic and other benefits of liberty. That is why other nations seek to emulate the United States, not because we demand that their religious laws conform to our notions of what is acceptable.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 121

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004

!DATE:
20 November 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 20, 2003



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concerns over the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report. I do not agree that Members of Congress should vote in favor of an authorization that most know almost nothing about — including the most basic issue of the level of funding.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 121:2
What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is something that should outrage every single American citizen. am referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular “Patriot II” legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 121:3
I also have concerns about the rest of the bill. One of the few things we do know about this final version is that we are authorizing even more than the president has requested for the intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but we must ask what we are getting for our money. It is notoriously difficult to assess the successes of our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps it is unfair that we only hear about its failures and shortcomings. However, we cannot help but be concerned over several such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of our federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. These are by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and treasure. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs, perhaps returning to an emphasis on the proven value of human intelligence and expanded linguistic capabilities for our intelligence personnel.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 121:4
I am also concerned that our scarce resources are again being squandered pursuing a failed drug war in Colombia, as this bill continues to fund our disastrous Colombia policy. Billions of dollars have been spent in Colombia to fight this drug war, yet more drugs than ever are being produced abroad and shipped into the United States — including a bumper crop of opium sent by our new allies in Afghanistan. Evidence in South America suggests that any decrease in Colombian production of drugs for the US market has only resulted in increased production in neighboring countries. As I have stated repeatedly, the solution to the drug problem lies not in attacking the producers abroad or in creating a militarized police state to go after the consumers at home, but rather in taking a close look at our seemingly insatiable desire for these substances. Until that issue is addressed we will continue wasting billions of dollars in a losing battle.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 121:5
In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this dangerous and expensive bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 122

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
November 21, 2003

!TITLE:
Say No To Involuntary Servitude



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:1
The ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of liberty.  True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did our war against the British.  But these wars are rare.  Most wars are unnecessary, dangerous, and cause senseless suffering with little being gained.  The result of most conflicts throughout the ages has been loss of liberty and life on both sides.  The current war in which we find ourselves clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and dangerous wars.  To get the people to support ill-conceived wars, the nation’s leaders employ grand schemes of deception.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:2
Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war against Germany.  Whether it was the Spanish American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures.  Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it.   He didn’t have the guts even to name the program a military draft; instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he advised the army should be “chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.”   Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn’t believe actual combat troops would be sent.  What a dramatic change from this early perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the carnage that followed – and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations.   The American people rejected this gross new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age than the one we find ourselves in today.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:3
But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives on. The plan for “universal liability to serve” once again is raising its ugly head.   The dollar cost of the current war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:4
Hundreds of Americans have already been killed, and thousands more wounded and crippled, while thousands of others will experience new and deadly war related illnesses not yet identified.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:5
We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (and to confront al Qaeda).   It was said our national security depended on it.  But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq.   It was implied that lack of support for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:6
Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we’re there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values.  And besides, it’s argued, it’s nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.   But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people?  Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:7
These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation direct attention away from the charge that the military industrial complex encouraged this war. It was encouraged by war profiteering, a desire to control natural resources (oil), and a Neo-con agenda of American hegemony with the goal of redrawing the borders of the countries of the Middle East.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:8
The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much energy into this occupation.   The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent to Iraq.  Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist.  The odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon change.  The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the issue begging for an answer.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:9
To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated.  The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:10
Unpopular wars invite conscription.  Volunteers disappear, as well they should.  A truly defensive just war prompts popular support.  A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the “enslavement” is only temporary.  But in the short run the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause – like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs.   Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives.  Endangering the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that’s why they are needed.  Too often, though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends.  Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and forgotten.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:11
It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place.  Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man!  Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense.  What right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value?  Even if well motivated it can’t justify using force on uninterested persons.  


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:12
It’s said that the 18 year old owes it to his country.  Hogwash!  It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his liberty for a cause that has no justification.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:13
All drafts are unfair.  All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted.  By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.  All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:14
The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized.  War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.  The great tragedy of war is the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people.   Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:15
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription – forcing a small number of youngvulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote.   These are wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, and too often not even declared by the Congress.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:16
Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more difficult to fight.   Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end.  But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny.  A free society must always resort to volunteers.  Tyrants thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I’m sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman.  This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we so often have found ourselves in the past century.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:17
One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid military service.  But avoiding the draft on principle qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war and oppose the draft for all others.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 122:18
A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens.  The ends can never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 123

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
December 8, 2003

!TITLE:
Whose Peace?



!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:1
Much has been written lately about several attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The best known of these recent plans - the “Geneva Initiative” -was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but without the involvement of governments or politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that can only be crafted by government officials, or bribed and bullied by the “international community”.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:2
We do know this: after decades of conflict and tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars spent, US government involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest US government-initiated plan for peace, the “road map,” appears to be a map to nowhere. This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of money to bribe the leaders of the two opposing sides to remain engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never arrive at peace?


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:3
But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated with the endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace agreements that go nowhere.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:4
That is why plans like this should be of such interest. Initially conceived by an obscure Swiss professor, the project was joined by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, former Palestinian Authority Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, and by other prominent individuals like former president Jimmy Carter. The negotiations led to the creation of a 50 page detailed accord.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:5
I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace. And that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian population support this new initiative. That is encouraging.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:6
To his credit, President Bush has demonstrated an open mind toward this alternative approach. He declared the Geneva Initiative “productive,” and added that the United States “appreciates people discussing peace.” Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed the president when he resisted hard-line pressure to ignore the proposed accord, stating, “I have an obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas.” This is also encouraging.


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:7
Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those-- governments, politicians, and special interests-- who have a stake in dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations that have a special interest in continuing the violence have also rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the Initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon: “Geneva is an attempt to do something only a government can do.”


!CITE:
2003 Ron Paul 123:8
But the point is that governments have little incentive to finally end conflicts such as these. The United States is in places like Kosovo and Bosnia indefinitely in the name of “peace-keeping” and “peace processes”. The same will be true of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is not until foreign involvement ceases — that means our continued meddling in the Middle East — and the people involved demand peace that real working solutions begin to emerge. The Geneva Initiative is therefore a positive step toward peace in the Middle East. Let us step back and get out of the way! 

Volume 2004 — The Book of Ron Paul




2004 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 4, 2004

!TITLE:
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War

!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:1
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:2
Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad information is a good investment.   The administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice so much in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that surely will last for years to come.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:3
But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself.   A proper investigation and debate by this Congress — as we’re now scrambling to accomplish — clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war.   An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened — and the whole war could have been avoided.   Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:4
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country — the decision to go to war — was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people.   If we followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency.   This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:5
The president reluctantly has agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures, and that is good.   Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry.   We can hope for the best from this newly appointed commission.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:6
But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere.   If the commission avoids the central controversy — whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration — the commission will appear a sham.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:7
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point — the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war.   The current mess was predictable from the beginning.   Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002.   The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then.   We should have debated a declaration of war resolution.   Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country.   This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence.    The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season.   Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 1:8
It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 11, 2004

!TITLE:
A Wise Consistency



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:1
A wise consistency is the foundation of a free society. Yet everyone knows, or thinks they know, that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a consistent philosophy defending freedom?   Even on this floor I have been rebuked by colleagues with this quote, for pointing out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely following our oath to uphold the Constitution.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:2
The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It’s considered beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting consistency; otherwise the self-criticism would be more than most Members could take. The comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an attitude that consistency not only is unnecessary, but detrimental. For this reason Emerson’s views are conveniently cited to justify pragmatism and arbitrary intervention in all our legislative endeavors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:3
Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil beliefs. Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these views, however. Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees philosophic competition. For instance, the views in Hong Kong eventually won out over the old communism of the Chinese mainland. But it can work in the other direction. If the ideas of socialism, within the context of our free society, are permitted to raise their ugly head, it may well replace what we have, if we do not consistently and forcefully defend the free market and personal liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:4
It’s quite a distortion of Emerson’s views to use them as justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of Washington today. But, the political benefits of not needing to be consistent are so overwhelming that there’s no interest in being philosophically consistent in one’s votes.   It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment, the congressional district, or one’s political party. Therefore, it’s quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one’s willingness to give up one’s own personal beliefs in order to serve the greater good — whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise something will replace our republic that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we have.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:5
As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in defending political views that were deemed worthy and correct. Emerson clearly explained the consistency he was criticizing. He was most annoyed by a foolish consistency. He attacked bull-headedness, believing that intellectuals should be more open-minded and tolerant of new ideas and discoveries. His attack targeted the flat-earth society types in the world of ideas. New information, he claimed, should always lead to reassessment of previous conclusions. To Emerson, being unwilling to admit an error and consistently defending a mistaken idea, regardless of facts, was indeed a foolish consistency. His reference was to a character trait, not sound logical thinking.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:6
Since it’s proven that centralized control over education and medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer to Emerson’s foolish consistency than defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:7
Emerson’s greatest concern was the consistency of conformity.   Nonconformity and tolerance of others obviously are much more respected in a free society than in a rigidly planned authoritarian society.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:8
The truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him against those who rigidly and consistently defend a free society, cherish and promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed today than any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical junction, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a few:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:9
Conservatives Who Spend: Conservatives for years have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of government, while supporting a new- found religion that preaches deficits don’t matter. According to Paul O’Neill, the Vice President lectured him that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”   Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo-conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing government growth is impossible.   Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year?   Even today, the only expression of concern for the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we have gone.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism : Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.”   That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and savers — in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:11
Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored. But simply put, one ought to have the right to spend one’s own money any way one wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic benefit for our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve production here at home. It also puts pressure on us to reassess the onerous regulations and tax burdens placed on our business community. Monopoly wages that force wage rates above the market also are challenged when true free trade is permitted. And this, of course, is the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes higher-than-market wages, and business likes less competition. In the end, consumers — all of us — suffer. Ironically, the free traders in Congress were the most outspoken opponents of drug reimportation, with a convoluted argument claiming that the free-trade position should prohibit the reimportation of pharmaceuticals. So much for a wise consistency!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:12
Following the Constitution—Arbitrarily, Of Course : Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one’s opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake.   While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency!   It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done.   In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered.   Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement.   Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”   Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:15
FDA and Legal Drugs—For Our Own Protection : Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses, and don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing.   It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society!   For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to injury.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:16
Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters.   The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws.   The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for various reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:17
Foreign Policy of Interventionism—General : Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson’s foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the time our failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle and nation-build around the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our meddling — a term our CIA invented — prompts us to spend endlessly while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing even to consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special interests and the military- industrial complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly the wise consistency of following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the last hundred years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates us more each day.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:18
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran.   If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed : Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:20
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States. But our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration doesn’t want. Democratic elections will have to wait.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:22
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:23
-The internal affairs and the need for nation building in Iraq are none of our business.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:24
-Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and the private-property/free-market order — through persuasion and example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or preemptive war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:25
-We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:26
-A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for each state or providence, is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away — no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands around the world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:27
-The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience or Necessity?    Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem.   Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty!   It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:29
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building.   The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.”   The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it.   Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:30
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war to end.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:31
First: The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims, see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it’s to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this region, it just doesn’t matter — few over there believe us.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:32
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on, to some degree, since World War II, but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the first Persian Gulf invasion along with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:33
Third: If these facts are ignored, there’s no chance that the United States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed (70% of the world’s oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions). Without a better understanding of the history of this region, it’s not even possible to define the enemy, know why they fight, or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution.   Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged:   “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!”   This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power.   The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened!   The courts did not save us from ourselves.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution.   There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court.   Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:36
Conclusion: Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The greatest open-minded idea I’m aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others, whether it’s in economic, social, or moral policy, or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed mind.   Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no more capable of running an economy made fair for everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to government for all guidance and security.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:37
Continuously ignoring Emerson’s advice on self-reliance is indeed a foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of the militant nanny state follow. And it’s an armed state, domestic as well as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what’s best for them, while the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and obedience to every law and regulation, most of which are incomprehensible to the average citizen.   Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the tax code and you will get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice Department to interpret the anti-trust laws, and you will get three different answers. First they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too low, then they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too high, and it’s certainly illegal if everybody sold products at the same price. All three positions can get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for first, undermining competition, second, for having too much control and gouging the public, and third, for engaging in collusion. The people can’t win.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:38
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos, or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by government — most suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards for private property ownership are the three principles required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or state entity.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:39
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not omnipotent, but also the confidence that true liberty generates the most practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic, domestic security, or national defense.   Short of this, any other system generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end, not our military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 2:40
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative, productive, or spiritual on one’s own terms, and encourages excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the expense of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these very same goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of a free society.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Social Security Protection Act

!DATE:
11 February 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, because it contains an important provision that was not included in previous versions of this bill. This provision takes a first step toward ensuring that non-citizens who are unauthorized to work in the United States do not receive Social Security benefits. Giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants is a slap in the faces of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the Social Security system and now face the possibility that there will be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. This is why, at the beginning of the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures no non-citizen can receive Social Security benefits. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress beginning at last to address this issue.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:2
However, I wish to make clear my continued opposition to a provision in the bill that removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same personal Social Security benefits, as does every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal Social Security benefits reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full Social Security benefits either before or after working in the public school system.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:3
The Government Pension Offset punishes people for teaching in public schools. However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting a full Social Security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill takes that option away from Texas teachers. I have twice voted against H.R. 743 because of my strong opposition to the provision removing the only way Texas teachers can avoid the Government Pension Offset.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:4
Instead of repealing the only means Texas teachers have of avoiding the Government Pension Offset, Congress should pass H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:5
Congress should also be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) that provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit Act (H.R. 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 3:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 743 because it restricts the ability of illegal immigrants to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. However, I remain opposed to the provision that punishes teachers by denying them Social Security benefits for which they would be eligible if they were not teachers. Instead of punishing teachers, Congress should be enacting pro-teacher legislation, such as the Social Security Fairness Act and the Teacher Tax Cut Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain

!DATE:
11 February 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
11 February 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is a pain management physician who bears the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the War on Drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug kingpins to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:4
Furthering the problem is that patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But, according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary, in many cases, to prescribe such a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:8
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation’s leading defenders of private medical practice and medical liberty, has recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug agents set medical standards.” I would hope that my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than will opioids obtained from a physician.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
February 12, 2004

!TITLE:
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:4
Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month.  A prescription this large may appear suspicious.   But according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids altogether — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “Our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:8
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation’s leading defenders of medical freedom, recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug agents set medical standards.” I would hope my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers.   Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment to act in their patients’ best interests. Doctors also should not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Belarus Freedom Act Of 2004

!DATE:
24 February 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 24, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Belarus Freedom Act of 2004. This bill will graduate Belarus from the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik statute and thereby establish permanent normal trade relations with that country.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 6:2
The Jackson-Vanik amendment was adopted in 1974, during a time when the U.S.S.R. was imposing enormous “education repayment fees” on anyone seeking to emigrate from that country. The statute was designed to prevent temporary restoration of an already suspended “most favored nation” treatment unless its freedom of emigration requirement is complied with. After the break-up of the U.S.S.R., the successor countries found themselves subject to Jackson-Vanik — meaning that they had to prove yearly that they allowed free emigration in order to enjoy normal trade relations with the United States. Several former Soviet republics have already been permanently graduated from Jackson-Vanik, and several others are in the process of being graduated. Belarus has gained a presidential waiver for every year since 1992, indicating its ongoing compliance with the requirements. Therefore it is time to recognize the passing of the Soviet era and move on toward better trade relations with Belarus.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 6:3
Though some have tried to read additional requirements into the original amendment, Jackson-Vanik is in reality solely about freedom of emigration. And, as I have stated, Belarus has attained a Presidential waiver every year since 1992.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 6:4
Time and time again we see that peaceful trade and good relations with other countries does much more to foster democratization and liberalization than sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and accusations. Our Founding Fathers recognized this when they cautioned against foreign entanglements and counseled instead free trade and friendly relations with all countries who seek the same.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 6:5
I hope my colleagues will join with me as cosponsors of this bill and support further constructive relations with the Republic of Belarus.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

!DATE:
February 26, 2004

!TITLE:
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:1
The Committee on Financial Services’ “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2005” begins by expressing concerns about the long-term threat that record level of deficit spending poses to the American economy, and pledging to support efforts to reduce the deficit. Yet in the rest of the document the committee advocates increasing spending on both foreign and domestic welfare. The committee also advocates new regulations that will retard economic growth, as well as violate the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:2
This document claims that “investor confidence” was boosted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed new federal regulations on capital markets, including mandating new duties for board members and dictating how companies must structure their boards of directors. One of Sarbanes-Oxley’s most onerous provisions makes every member of a company’s board of directors, as well as the company’s chief executive officer, criminally liable if they fail to catch accounting errors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:3
As investigative reporter John Berleau detailed in his Insight magazine article (“Sarbanes-Oxley is a Business Disaster”), the new mandates in Sarbanes-Oxley have caused directorship, accounting, audit, and legal fees to double. In addition, the cost of directors’ liability insurance has almost doubled since Sarbanes-Oxley became law. Not surprisingly, the impact of these new costs hit small businesses especially hard — the traditional engine of job creation in America.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:4
The costs of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley divert capital away from activities that create jobs. Yet the committee is actually considering imposing Sarbanes-Oxley-like regulations on the mutual funds industry! Instead of expanding the regulatory state, the committee should examine the economic effects of Sarbanes-Oxley and at least pass legislation exempting small businesses from the law’s requirements.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.   In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge.   Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:6
While the committee’s “Views and Estimates” devote considerable space to discussing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), it makes no mention of the billions of dollars in subsidies Congress has given to GSEs. These subsidies distort the market, create a short-term boom in housing, and endanger the economy by allowing GSEs to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:7
Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, the financial losses suffered by the mortgage debt holders will be greater than they would have been had the government not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:8
Government subsidies helped Fannie and Freddie triple their debt to more than $2.2 trillion from 1995 to 2002. Fannie and Freddie’s combined debt soon could surpass the privately held debt of the entire federal government. A taxpayer bailout of the GSEs would dwarf the savings-and-loan bailout of the early nineties and could run up the national debt to unmanageable levels.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:9
However, according to the Committee on Financial Services, the problem with GSEs is not taxpayer subsidizes but a lack of proper regulation! Therefore, the only GSE reform recommended by this document is to create a new regulator to oversee GSEs. In fact, new regulators, or new regulations, will not do anything to correct the market distortions caused by government support of GSEs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:10
Instead of reorganizing the deck chairs of the GSEs’ looming fiscal Titanic, the Committee should pass HR 3071, the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This act repeals government subsidies for the housing-related GSEs — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home Loan Bank Board.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:11
The committee’s inconsistency regarding deficit reduction is shown by its support for increased spending for almost every foreign aid program under its jurisdiction. Of course, Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely helps improve the standard of living for citizens of “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals the committee embraces smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that a country whose economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats will be rewarded with money stolen from the American taxpayer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:12
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations.   Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value uses of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot obtain market funding reduce economic efficiency and decrease living standards.   Yet, Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:13
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to    reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund.   If the committee is not going to defund programs such as Ex-Im, it should at least act on legislation Mr. Sanders will introduce denying corporate welfare to industries that move a substantial portion of their workforce overseas. It is obscene to force working Americans to subsidize their foreign competitors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:15
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s “Views and Estimates” is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially so given the recent decline in the value of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:16
It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need to reform the fiat currency system.   The committee also should examine how Federal Reserve policies encourage excessive public and private sector debt, and the threat that debt poses to the long-term health of the American economy. Additionally, the committee should examine how the American government and economy would be affected if the dollar lost its privileged status as the world’s reserve currency. After all, the main reason the United States government is able to run such large deficits without suffering hyperinflation is the willingness of foreign investors to hold US debt instruments. If, or when, the dollar’s weakness causes foreigners to become reluctant to invest in US debt instruments, the results could be cataclysmic for our economy.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 7:17
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet also supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The report also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps most disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems created by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting increase in private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.  

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act

!DATE:
26 February 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:3
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:8
Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Requests Opposition Time

!DATE:
3 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire on whether or not the gentleman on the other side is in opposition to the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT), is he opposed to the motion?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the motion.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 9:2
Mr. PAUL. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1(c) of rule XV, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) to control the time in opposition to the motion.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1

!DATE:
3 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution but obviously not because we should not honor the men who were asked to do their duty and lost their lives. It is for another reason.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:3
I would like to call attention to my colleagues and to the Congress the lack of success on the war on drugs. The war has been going on for 30 years. The success is not there, and I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think that everything is going well and that we have achieved something, because there is really no evidence for that. Not only that, there have been many unintended consequences that we fail to look at, and I want to take this time to make that the point and try to get some of us to think that there may be another way to fight the war on drugs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:4
I do not know of anybody who likes drugs and advocates the use of drugs. I as a physician am strongly opposed to the use of drugs. It is just that the techniques make a big difference. We are talking about bad habits, and yet we are resorting to the use of force, literally an army of agents and hundreds of billions of dollars over a 30-year period, in an effort to bring about changes in people’s habits. Someday we are going to have to decide how successful we have been. Was it a good investment? Have we really accomplished anything?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:5
Another reason why I am taking this time to express an opposition is that the process has been flawed. After World War I, there was a movement in this country that believed that too many Americans had bad habits of drinking too much alcohol, and of course, if we really want to deal with a bad drug, alcohol is it. Many, many more die from alcoholism and drunken driving and all kinds of related illnesses, but the country knew it and they recognized how one dealt with those problems.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:6
The one thing that this country recognized was that the Congress had no authority to march around the country and tell people not to drink beer, and what did they do? They resorted to amending the Constitution, a proper procedure, and of course, it turned out to be a failed experiment. After 12 years, they woke up and the American people changed it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:7
We have gone 30 years and we have not even reconsidered a new approach to the use of drugs and the problems that we face.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:9
The DEA was created by an executive order. Imagine the size of this program created merely by a President signing an executive order. Of course, the ultimate responsibility falls on the Congress because we acquiesce and we vote for all the funding. The DEA has received over $24 billion in the past 30 years, but the real cost of law enforcement is well over $240 billion when we add up all the costs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:10
And then if we look at the prison system, we have created a monstrosity. Eighty-four percent, according to one study, 84 percent of all Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug prisoners. They go in and they come out violent. We are still talking about a medical problem. We treat alcoholism as a medical problem, but anybody who smokes a marijuana cigarette or sells something, we want to put them in prison. I think it is time to stop and reevaluate this.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:11
One other point is that as a physician I have come to the firm conclusion that the war on drugs has been very detrimental to the practice of medicine and the care of patients. The drug culture has literally handicapped physicians in caring for the ill and the pain that people suffer with terminal illnesses. I have seen doctors in tears coming to me and saying that all his wife had asked me for was to die not in pain; and even he, as a physician, could not get enough pain medication because they did not want to make her an addict. So we do have a lot of unintended consequences.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:12
We have civil liberty consequences as well. We set the stage for gangsters and terrorists raising money by making weeds and wild plants and flowers illegal. If someone could say and show me all of a sudden that the American people use a lot less drugs and kids are never tempted, it would be a better case; but we do not have the evidence. We have no evidence to show that 30 years of this drug war has done very much good. Matter of fact, all studies of the DARE program show that the DARE program has not encouraged kids to use less illegal drugs. So there is quite a few reasons why we ought not to just glibly say to the DEA it’s been a wonderful 30 years and encourage more of it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:13
The second part of the resolution talks about the sacrifice of these men. To me, it is a tragedy. Why should we ever have a policy where men have to sacrifice themselves? I do not believe it is necessary. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol. I believe the drug war ought to be fought, but in a much different manner.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 10:14
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2

!DATE:
3 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHAW). The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:3
Regarding the loss of lives, whether it is 3,000 that some report, or 20,000, many of those would be preventable if we did not have the drug wars going on. The drug wars go on because people are fighting for turf and then the police have to go in and try to stop them because prices are artificially high. We have created the incentive for drug violence. We take something worthless and make it worth billions of dollars. We set the stage for terrorists.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:4
Right now, because of the policies in Afghanistan, 80 percent of Afghanistan now has been returned to the drug lords. If the drugs were worthless, there would be no incentive to promote them. But they are worth a lot of money, so inadvertently our drug war pushes the prices up, and we create the incentive for the Taliban and others to raise the poppies and send the drugs over here. Then they finance the terrorists. So it is an unintended consequence that does not make any sense. It does not have to happen.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:5
The big challenge is will anybody ever be willing to raise the questions and suggest another way. Could we have made a mistake, such as we did with the prohibition of alcohol? This does not mean that everybody has everything they want. Alcohol is legal, but kids get marijuana and other drugs easier on the street than they get their alcohol, because there is such a tremendous incentive.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:6
During prohibition it was very well known that because alcohol was illegal, the more concentrated it is and the higher price it is because you can move it about and because it is contraband. So there is a tremendous incentive to do that. And then, when it is illegal, it becomes more dangerous. That is exactly what happens on drugs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:7
One hundred years ago, you could buy cocaine in a drugstore. Most Americans would be tremendously surprised to realize that for most of our history drugs were not illegal. The first marijuana law was in 1938. And they got around that on the constitutional aspect by just putting a tax on it. So there is a lack of respect for how we solve our problems, a lack of wisdom on what we ought to do, and a lack of concern; and this is my deep concern as a physician, a lack of concern for seeing people dying and suffering.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:8
Just think of the people who claim and are believable that they get some relief from marijuana, the paraplegics and those who have cancer and receiving chemotherapy. And in our arrogance, we, at the national level, write laws that send the DEA in to cancel out the States that have tried to change the law and show a little bit of compassion for people that are dying.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:9
We are constitutionally wrong, we are medically wrong, we are economically wrong, and we are not achieving anything. We have no faith and confidence in our constitutional system. We have no faith and confidence that we change moral and personal habits through persuasion, not through armed might.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:10
This is a choice. Nobody is for the use of drugs that I know of. But there is a big difference if you casually and carelessly resort to saying, oh, it is good that you do not do drugs, to let us create a drug army to prance around the country, and then lo and behold houses are invaded, mistakes are made, innocent people are killed, and it does not add up.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:11
It is still astounding to me to find out that the DEA was not even created by congressional legislation. It was created by an executive order. We have gone a long way, colleagues, from where the respect for the Constitution existed and that at least the Congress should legislate. Even in the 1920s, when we attacked alcohol, we had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:12
Mr. Speaker, I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think the war on drugs is being won, and the failure to look at the unintended consequences, the real cost. As a matter of fact, this resolution brings up the real cost, this long list, this long tragic list of individuals who have been killed over this war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:13
So I am asking once again not so much to be in opposition to this resolution, but this resolution is to praise 30 years of the DEA and to praise an agency that really has no authority because it comes only from the executive branch, but for us to someday seriously think about the problems that have come from the war on drugs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 11:14
Let me tell Members, there is a politically popular position in this country that many are not aware of: The tragedy of so many families seeing their loved ones die and suffer without adequate care, 90-year-old people dying of cancer and nurses and doctors intimidated and saying we cannot make them a drug addict. This drug war culture that we live with has done a lot of harm in the practice of medicine. Attacking the physicians who prescribe pain medicine and taking their licenses from them is reprehensible. I ask Members to please reconsider, not so much what we do today, but in the future, maybe we will wake up and decide there is a better way to teach good habits to American citizens.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 3

!DATE:
3 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 12:2
Mr. Speaker, let me just close with a comment about the prison system and what has happened. As I mentioned before, 84 percent of Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. Many go into prison, and they come out hardened criminals, and the problem is made much worse. Because of overcrowding, we have the release of violent prisoners because the prisons are too full. Also, the rules on mandatory sentencing of non-violent offenders have not been a good idea and have contributed to the problems that we face.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 12:3
Another thing which I have not mentioned before but is worth thinking about is the inequity in the enforcement of laws. If one happens to be a wealthy, white-collar worker caught using cocaine, the odds of that individual serving time in prison is very reduced, compared to if you are caught in the inner city. It seems there is less justice for the inner city youth. This, of course, intensifies the problems of the inner city.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 12:4
Once again, all I ask is that in the future we look at our drug policy because current policy is working so poorly, and also to reconsider the fact that we have gone 30 years with a program where there is no evidence of success, and astoundingly it was all done under an executive order.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
We The People Act

!DATE:
4 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 4, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 13:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment

!DATE:
March 10, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:1
We will soon debate the “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” on the House Floor.   This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated.   It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:2
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”   Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:3
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society.   The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:4
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:5
This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech.   Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared — and besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements.   Supporters of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all societies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:6
Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care more about the 1st Amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years to curtail so-called “hate speech” by championing political correctness.   In the last few decades we’ve seen the political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior and language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on liberal campuses to be disrupted and even banned.   These tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of free speech.   Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom campus liberals disagree has nearly evaporated.   The systematic and steady erosion of freedom of speech continues.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections.   Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns.   Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:8
And now comes the right’s attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways.   And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios.   For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:9
But this current proposal is dangerous.   Since most Americans- I hope- are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed.   We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:10
The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive.   The real harm comes later.   But “later” is now approaching.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:11
The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect the peoples’ attitudes prompts this effort.   It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times.   It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that we now see as routine entertainment.   Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people.   Laws like the proposed “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression.   Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed.   Societal standards will not be improved.   Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:12
Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it’s the government’s responsibility to protect them.   The mistake of never having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st Amendment mandate that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.”   When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it.   Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power.   From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:13
We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek.   If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago.   The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way.   Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:14
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid.   The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion.   It just doesn’t work.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:15
But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government does not act by:



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:16
- Restricting free expression in advertising;



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:17
- Claiming insensitive language hurts people, and political correctness guidelines are needed to protect the weak;



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:18
- Arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special interests;



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:19
- Banning indecency on the airways that some believe encourages immoral behavior.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:20
If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with.   This principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies.   That means total control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views.   This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists.   And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century.   This is the real danger, and if we’re in the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the logical next step.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:21
It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known to man.   Sadly, we’re moving in that direction, and no matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:22
When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending – like the Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:23
Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the speech police.   He states:   “I’m in the free speech business,” as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies’ authority and responsibility to self-regulate.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 14:24
Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment.   This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of speech — of any kind.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Federalizing Tort Law

!DATE:
10 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again using abusive litigation at the state level as a justification nationalizing tort law. In this case, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H.R. 339) usurps state jurisdiction over lawsuits related to obesity against food manufactures.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:2
Of course, I share the outrage at the obesity lawsuits. The idea that a fast food restaurant should be held legally liable because some of its customers over indulged in the restaurants products, and thus are suffering from obesityrelated health problems, is the latest blow to the ethos of personal responsibility that is fundamental in a free society. After all, McDonalds does not force anyone to eat at its restaurants. Whether to make Big Macs or salads the staple of one’s diet is totally up to the individual. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a diet centering on super-sized cheeseburgers, french fires, and sugar-filled colas is not healthy. Therefore, there is no rational basis for these suits. Some proponents of lawsuits claim that the fast food industry is “preying” on children. But isn’t making sure that children limit their consumption of fast foods the responsibility of parents, not trial lawyers? Will trial lawyers next try to blame the manufactures of cars that go above 65 miles per hour for speeding tickets?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:3
Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party — such as the taxpayers or a corporation with “deep pockets.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 15:6
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Undermining First Amendment

!DATE:
11 March 2004

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but I would like to express a few views on why I will oppose the legislation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:2
I am convinced that the Congress has been a very poor steward of the first amendment, and we are moving in the direction of further undermining the first amendment with this legislation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:3
First, many years ago, it was an attack on commercial speech by dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, which the Constitution does not permit. Then there was a systematic attack from the left, writing rules against hate speech which introduced the notion of political correctness. Recently, there was a petition to the Department of Justice that has asked the Department to evaluate “The Passion of Christ” as an example of hate speech. Unintended consequences do occur.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:4
Next came along a coalition between right and left, and there was an attack on campaign speech with the campaign finance reform with a suspension of freedom of speech during an election period.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:6
I would like to close by quoting someone who is obviously not a libertarian and obviously not a liberal who has great concern about what we are doing, and he comes from the conservative right, Rush Limbaugh. He said: “If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong, what happens if a whole bunch John Kerrys or Terry McAuliffes start running this country and decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It is one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be a party to it. It is another thing for the government to do it.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 16:7
Mr. Speaker, we all should be in the free speech business.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004

!DATE:
11 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 2004


The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3717) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lude, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the “people” don’t really control the airwaves anymore then the “people” control the government in the “People’s Republic” of China! Instead, the “people’s airwaves” is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:5
Congress should reject H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate federal standards, H.R. 3717 expands an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. H.R. 3717 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 3717 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is “obscene” or “indecent.” While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is “hate speech.” Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include “hate speech.” Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 3717 also hold views that would likely be classified as “indecent hate speech.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:9
The nation’s leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:10
If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong . . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys, or Terry McAliffes start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:11
I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for the government to do it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:12
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 3717 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick “Survivor” off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:13
H.R. 3717 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters’ profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes “risk adverse,” that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS’s quick attempt at “damage control” after the Super Bowl. Last year, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie “The Reagans,” which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:14
Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from “indecent” broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people’s morals; it can only reduce liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:15
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no Constitutional authority because the plain language of the First Amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:17
Just this week, there was a full-page ad in Roll Call, the daily paper distributed to House members, from people who want Congress to impose new regulations on movies featuring smoking. No doubt the sponsors of this ads are drooling over the prospect of fining stations that show Humphrey Bogart movies for indecent broadcasts.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:18
These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 17:19
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 3717 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the First Amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!TITLE:
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War

!DATE:
March 17, 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H. Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a member of the International Relations committee.   The fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:2
I wish to express my opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously not because our armed forces do not deserve praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed. A resolution commending our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have political benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:3
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:4
Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war raging on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil, and denying that occupying an Islamic country is an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims, is foolhardy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:5
Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged its constitutional responsibility over war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:6
This resolution dramatizes how we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:7
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not potential targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that al Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein has resulted in al Qaeda now having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly, has been dramatically increased.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 18:8
We all praise our troops and support them. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be cautious about endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ends it.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposing H.R. 557

!DATE:
17 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 557. I do so obviously not because I oppose praising our armed forces, but because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed and an effort to commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though this resolution may yield political benefits to those who are offering it, it will prove to be historically inaccurate. Justifying preemption is not the answer to avoiding appeasement.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:2
Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good and just, including this one. In reality, most wars are costly beyond measure in life and limb and economic hardship, including this one. There have been 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a “victory” that remains elusive. Rather than bragging of victory we should recognize that the war that rages on has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:3
Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress’s reneging on its Constitutional responsibility on war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:4
This resolution seems to forget that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein. This in itself only demonstrates the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades from the days of the U.S. installing the Shah of Iran to the current world-wide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary intervention abroad shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:5
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico and many other nations are not potential targets of an attack by Islamic extremists.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:6
Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely claiming that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment sadly has been dramatically boosted.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:7
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:8
(1) United States Embassy in the United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State. “Rumsfeld One-on-One Meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,” December 21, 1983.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:9
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:10
(2) Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. “EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq” [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:11
Pursuant to the Reagan administration’s policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), “The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.” The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq’s future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and “go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:12
This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:13
Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the “right” to “security, education, health care, and social security,” and affirms that “the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.” This sounds more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and market-oriented society. Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens “shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms” except by special license — denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral system, stating that women should “constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly.” Is this kind of social engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:14
We all praise our troops and support them. Had this bill merely done that I would have been an enthusiastic supporter. But in politicizing the issue rather than simply praising the armed forces, I regret that I cannot support it. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and our policy in the Persian Gulf, however, is not appropriate.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 19:15
We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ending it. That, sadly, is what this legislation does.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
March 22, 2004

!TITLE:
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This Act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration’s power to impede consumers access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being, or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:2
Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. Anyone who is (or has been) on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the board.   The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim- provided it is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:5
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), liberalizing rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:7
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:8
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:9
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
North American Development Bank

!DATE:
24 March 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 254 expands the authority of the North American Development Bank (NAD), which was created in the allegedly free-trade NAFTA agreement, to make below-market loans. H.R. 254 also expands the geographic area in which the NAD bank operates. This bill is economically unsound and blatantly unconstitutional and I hope my colleagues will reject it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 21:2
Supporters of the NAD claim that the bank facilitates economic development and thus improves the quality of life for those living in regions where NAD finances projects. In fact, the NAD bank hinders economic development.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 21:3
When Congress funds institutions like NAD, it transfers resources from the private sector to the government. When resources are left in the private sector, they are put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, the use of resources transferred to the public sector by agencies like NAD is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, thus assuring that the resources cannot be put to their highest-valued use. Therefore, determining the allocation of resources through the political process decreases economic efficiency. Thus, NAD will actually cost jobs and reduce the standard of living of the very workers NAD’s supporters claim to benefit!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 21:4
I would also like to remind my colleagues that there is no constitutional authorization for Congress to fund organizations like the NAD. If my colleagues are not convinced by the constitutional argument, I would hope they would consider the wisdom of expanding the scope of taxpayer support of programs like the NAD at a time when the government is facing massive deficits and Congress is scrambling to find the money to pay for national priorities.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 21:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for sound economics and constitutional principles by rejecting H.R. 254, legislation expanding the North American Development Bank.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Television Consumer Freedom Act

!DATE:
24 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 24, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumer’s ability to obtain desired television programming. The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that would increase the cost of a television.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:5
This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal “must carry” mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming their customers’ desire. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:6
The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain “digital technology.” In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006 that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufactures and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government mandated price increase.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 22:7
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Child Health Care Affordability Act

!DATE:
24 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 24, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children’s health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child’s health care expenses.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:2
The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long-term or specialized health care.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:3
As an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code — Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress’ refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:4
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation’s already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:5
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:6
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 23:8
The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
March 25, 2004

!TITLE:
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.   Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller.   This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years.   In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today.   Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago?   Hardly.   It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade.   We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is.   A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:2
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society?   Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free country?   We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.   Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all.   My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this.   Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd.   But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans.   When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion.   Why not?   It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:3
I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.”   In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point.   Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more.   If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while Democrats seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:4
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending.   An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs.   In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending.   When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either.   Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time?   The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course.   NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:5
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense.   Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit.   Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees.   The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year.   Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory.   The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security.   The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 24:6
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam.   The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home.   Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!TITLE:
Don’t Expand NATO!

!DATE:
March 30, 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:3
And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:4
The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:5
It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:6
The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:7
Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 25:8
In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act

!DATE:
1 April 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 1, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 26:7
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their Constitutional duty to ensure that American citizens have American justice by cosponsoring the American Justice for American Citizens Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

!DATE:
April 22, 2004

!TITLE:
The Lessons of 9/11



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:1
We are constantly admonished to remember the lessons of 9/11.   Of course the real issue is not remembering, but rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that sad day is.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:2
The 9/11 Commission soon will release its report after months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake.   The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal little we don’t already know, while ignoring the most important lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland.   Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars spent by government agencies, whose job it is to provide security and intelligence for our country, failed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:3
A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the future, but one should never pretend that government bureaucracies can be made efficient.   It is the very nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient.   Spending an inordinate amount of time finger pointing will distract from the real lessons of 9/11.   Which agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main purpose of the investigation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:4
Despite our serious failure to prevent the attacks, it’s disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become.   Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high stakes election-year event, and distracts from the real lessons ignored by both sides.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:5
Everyone on the Commission assumes that 9/11 resulted from a lack of government action.   No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings, brought to light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government.   Possibly in the final report we will discuss this, but to date no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of course — though elusive — a more efficient one.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:6
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington.   The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11.   These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:7
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people:   removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity.   If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing.   We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:8
Though we hear much about the so-called “benefits” we have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American people:   lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy.   Sharp political divisions, reminiscent of the 1960s, are arising at home.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:9
Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing — while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 — have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face.   Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq.   The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:10
The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism.   It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers.   It’s conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:11
Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks.   By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it’s easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame.   We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of others 6,000 miles from our shores.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:12
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to “testing our resolve.”   It is said by many — even some who did not support the war — that now we have no choice but to “stay the course.”   They argue that it’s a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult.   But that should not be the issue.   It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy.   If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need.   Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us.   Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to “make the world safe for democracy” should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war — especially since it almost never produces the desired results.   There are always too many unintended consequences.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies.   We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya.   This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:14
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election that put the radical Shiites in charge.   As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it’s not going to happen.   These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain.   We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:15
Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy.   So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:16
In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neo-cons gloated — and I heard them — of the “shock and awe” that was about to hit the Iraqi people.   It turns out that the real shock and awe is that we’re further from peace in Iraq than we were a year ago — and Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise.           


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:17
The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the deaths of American soldiers—if they kill 10 of our troops, we’ll kill 100 of theirs.   Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but the new policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed.   But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical Islamic militants.   The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:18
Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time thought to be impossible—it has united the Sunnis and Shiites against our presence.   Although this is probably temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq.   The results are an escalation of the conflict and the requirement for more troops.   This acceleration of the killing is called “pacification”—a bit of 1984 newspeak.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:19
The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony.   The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their homeland has increased many times over.   Under Saddam Hussein, essentially no resistance occurred.   Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face much greater and unified efforts to throw out all foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:20
It’s not whether the Commission investigation of the causes of 9/11 is unwarranted; since the Commissioners are looking in the wrong places for answers, it’s whether much will be achieved.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:21
I’m sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, or all of them for failure to communicate with each other.   This will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us.   It’s likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency.   Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:22
We should support efforts to make the intelligence agencies more effective, but one thing is certain: more money won’t help.   Of the 40 billion dollars spent annually for intelligence, too much is spent on nation building and activities unrelated to justified surveillance.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:23
There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11.   If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the opposite is more likely to occur.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:24
The first point is to understand who assumes most of the responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free society.   It’s not the police.   There are too few of them, and it’s not their job to stand guard outside our houses or places of business.   More crime occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners’ rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums.   In safer rural areas, where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it is, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner’s responsibility to deal with any property violators.   This understanding works rather well—at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:25
How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies?   The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather than those of rural America.   They all assumed that the government was in charge of airline security—and unfortunately, by law, it was.   Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking.   Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumption, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security.    Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:26
The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another.   Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11.   Both the prohibition against guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:27
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky.   Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process.   This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection.   Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:28
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored.   I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism—practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years—as an important reason 9/11 occurred.   Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life.   If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:29
Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted.   Very little attention had been directed toward protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:30
Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands.   Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.   We’ve kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries.   This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11.   These priorities must change, but I’m certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:31
This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight.   The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands.   This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East.   With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous.   It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:32
Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong.   They can’t be the same.   There are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance.   But that doesn’t mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and throughout the world—making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam.   In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops. Over 700 have been killed in Iraq in just over a year.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:33
Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan — and diverting resources to Iraq — have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:34
Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:35
Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible.   Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued.   Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything as part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically, from a band of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process.   How we fight back depends on understanding these differences.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:36
Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:37
The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:38
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial.   Those reasons are multiple and varied.   They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect “our” oil.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile.   This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:40
Sadly, in the process the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the taxes, those whose lives are sacrificed in no-win undeclared wars, and the unemployed and poor as the economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:41
Regardless of one’s enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one cold fact soon must be recognized by all of us in Congress.   The American people cannot afford it, and when the market finally recognizes the over commitment we’ve made, the results will not be pleasing to anyone.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:42
A “guns and butter” policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates.   The current “guns and butter” policy is even more intense, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then.   These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically.   It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other hot spot, can be pursued for years.   But when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion dollars per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our citizens.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:43
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar’s value, and a faltering economy.   Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans—except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess—if this policy of profligate spending continues.   Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:44
Conclusion I’m sure the Commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades.   I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed.   That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people.   We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 27:45
I’m afraid the Commission will answer only a few questions while raising many new ones.   Overall though, the Commission has been beneficial and provides some reassurance to those who believe we operate in a much too closed society.   Fortunately, any administration, under the current system, still must respond to reasonable inquiries.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Continuity In Representation Act

!DATE:
22 April 2004

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I am very pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:2
H.R. 2844 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed. H.R. 2844 thus protects the people’s right to choose their Representative at a time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:3
The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that is a very important point to carefully guard against and protect our constitutional liberties, and that an overcentralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to our liberties. However, during a time of crisis, it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:5
Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:6
Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:7
The Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:8
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 2844 provides a practical and Constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 members are killed, H.R. 2844 thus protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:9
Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants state governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place, and manner of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 members of the House have been killed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:10
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:11
I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:12
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:13
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of Government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:14
Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:15
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 28:16
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the Drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing Cassandra Tamez’s Essay Into The Congressional Record

!DATE:


HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following essay by Miss Cassandra Tamez, a high school student who resides in my Congressional district. Miss Tamez’s essay, entitled “My Commitment to America’s Future,” earned her a Voice of Democracy Scholarship award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am very proud of Miss Tamez’s efforts and I wish her well in her future endeavors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:2
“MY COMMITMENT TO AMERICA’S FUTURE”
(By Cassandra Tamez)
When I think of the word “commitment,” an image of my school’s athletic teams pops into my mind. I think of what the coaches used to say during their pep talks before a game, “There’s no question about it, we’re going to win tonight. I have seen the effort put in by this team . . . We have determination; we have dedication; and we have commitment.” My teammates and I would get really “pumped up.” We were ready to go out there and win. Looking back now, though, I do not think that as individuals we were truly committed, because commitment is not merely an effort for one game but for every practice and every game.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:3
I think commitment is doing something, whether you have the ability to or not, and sticking with it. Commitment is following through every single day. Commitment is focusing solely on the one thing that you commit yourself to. Commitment is binding yourself to something. It is a pledge.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:4
So with all this in mind I ask myself, what is my commitment to America’s future? Should I recycle or join a beautification committee to preserve America? Should I donate money to foundations that help kids? Or perhaps I could pledge my time to hospitals or nursing homes to help the sick people of America . . .


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:5
Most people would probably think that my efforts in any of these would make little difference. After all, I am only one person, a speck of sand on a beach. Recycling . . . Yes, collecting cans and glass bottles would be a Tremendous help. My mother recycles. I went with her one day to help her put all our old newspapers in the recycling bin. I started thinking. How many people are there in the world, billions? Out of all these people, how many recycle? I laughed to myself, probably not that many. My mom was definitely wasting her time.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:6
Donating money . . . I am not rich. How could the amount of money that I give even help one person with cancer or in need of help? I have seen programs on T.V. that talk about saving the life of a child by just donating 88 cents a day. Then I began thinking about how much it costs for me to eat for just one day. I estimated that my food alone costs eight to fifteen dollars. How could a child survive on 88 cents a day? Is it possible?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:7
Pledging my time . . . I used to do volunteer work in a nursing home. I would go there every day during the summer and try and help out however I could. However, I remember this one day that something really horrible happened. I was walking down the hall when all of a sudden this lady started screaming. I looked around, waiting for someone to come running and help her. I waited for about ten seconds, but no one came. I ran towards the nurses’ station to see if anyone was on their way. Three of them were just standing there. I knew they could hear the woman screaming . . . I wanted to tell them something, but was it my place? I returned to the woman screaming instead. As soon as I walked in the room she said, “Help me, Honey. Please, it’s my leg. I need to move it.” I moved forward to help her, but then I hesitated. What if her legs were not supposed to be moved? Could I hurt her if I moved them? By this time I was getting frantic. I told her I would go get someone to help and ran out. I took five steps out the door, and a nurse was standing there, calmly writing on a piece of paper. “Um, I think that lady needs some help”, I told her. She looked up in annoyance and shouted to another nurse that she needed something for “The Screamer.” I stood there for a moment in shock. They acted as if this woman were just a nuisance. At that moment I felt hatred; clearly that woman was in pain. I did not know what was wrong with her, and I could not help her. There was no point in my being there.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:8
Taking all of my experiences into consideration, I think this is exactly how many other people think; they feel helpless and insignificant. They feel too small to make any real difference in the world. And then I came across this poem by Edward Everette Hale. He said,


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:9
I am only one,
But still I am one.
I cannot do everything
But still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do
The something that I can do.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:10
I have to admit that this poem has inspired me. Because even though I am but one speck of sand on a beach, I know that I am a solid and firm speck, and that there are other specs like me that compose the sand. I am one of many who may carry the optimistic attitude of commitment to America. Once again, I think back to my efforts of recycling, donating money, and pledging my time, and realize that they were not futile efforts at all. When I recycled, I know it was probably only thirty newspapers out of trillions in the world, but what if I recycled once a month? That would be 360 newspapers a year for a lifetime. I might save a beautiful tree or even more. As for donating money, well 88 cents a day from me might not feed a child, but if only nine more people in my state donate 88 cents, then that child has a total of $8.80, my estimate of money needed for a day. Now, as far as pledging my time goes, I do not think my time spent in the nursing home was a complete waste. I did help one patient who was in pain.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 29:11
So once again, what is my commitment to America’s future? My commitment is to “play to my strengths.” My commitment is to do my best. Like the patriotic commercials on television say, “We, the children, are America’s future,” and every bit we can do helps.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill

!DATE:
28 April 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 28, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation offered by Mr. GUTIERREZ using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) preemption regulation because I strongly oppose any attempt to expand the OCC’s regulatory functions beyond the power Congress originally granted the OCC. The OCC was never meant to serve as a national consumer protection agency. Its limited, intended role has been underscored by Federal court rulings that State law remains applicable to national banks in the absence of explicit Federal preemption.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 30:2
Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 30:3
This new OCC authority will have far-reaching and unintended consequences. State law governing mortgage brokers, sub-prime lenders, check cashing centers, leasing companies, and even car dealers could be preempted under the new proposal. This proposal may also give national banks and their subsidiaries a competitive advantage over small mortgage companies. OCC undoubtedly will need to hire new staff. Yet the OCC still may be unable to handle the flood of new responsibilities. Unless Congress resists any expansion of OCC, it risks creating another huge, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency. Therefore, I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support Mr. Gutierriez’s legislation disapproving the OCC’s preemption regulation.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!TITLE:
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq

!DATE:
May 6, 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we have seen here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be. Were this really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees, I doubt anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past week are truly horrific.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:2
But why are we condemning a small group of low-level servicemembers when we do not yet know the full story? Why are we rushing to insert ourselves into an ongoing investigation, pretending that we already know the conclusions when we have yet to even ask all the questions? As revolting as the pictures we have seen are, they are all we have to go by, and we are reacting to these pictures alone. We do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to condemn those who have not even yet had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems convenient and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of “bad apples” for what may well turn out to be something completely different – as the continuously widening investigation increasingly suggests.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:3
Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim that their superior officers and the civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose this way. We cannot say with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a few photographs. We have heard that some of those soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard that they were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous situation with little training and little understanding of the rules and responsibilities. What additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those in charge of interrogations? We don’t know. Does this excuse what appears to be reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest that we need to get all the facts before we draw conclusions. It is more than a little disturbing that this resolution does not even mention the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons at whom numerous fingers are being pointed as instigators of these activities. While these individuals seem to operate with impunity, this legislation before us all but convicts without trial those lowest in the chain of command.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:4
But this resolution is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though this is the pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an enthusiastic endorsement of our nation-building activities in Iraq. This resolution “expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives…with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.” Also this resolution praises the “mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it…” At least the resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:5
Further, this resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq. I wonder whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to build a better nation there, or to bring about “improvements in… water, sewage, power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food security…” as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war claim at the time that the goals were to “significantly improv[e]…food availability, health service, and educational opportunities” in Iraq, as this legislation also references. No, the war was essential, they claimed, to stop a nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable harm against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out how wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies the loss of countless American and Iraqi civilian lives.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:6
This resolution decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:7
This resolution calls on the administration to keep Congress better informed. But Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep itself better informed! If Congress is truly interested in being informed, it should hold hearings – exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Depending on the administration to fulfill what is our own constitutional responsibility is once again passing the buck. Isn’t this what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 31:8
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!TITLE:
Don’t Start a War with Iran!

!DATE:
May 6, 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 32:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate means….”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 32:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 32:4
It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 32:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Brown v. Board Of Education

!DATE:
13 May 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Con. Res. 414, the resolution commending the anniversary of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and related cases. While I certainly agree with the expression of abhorrence at the very idea of forced segregation I cannot, without reservation, simply support the content in the resolution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:2
The “whereas clauses” of this resolution venture far beyond the basis of Brown and praise various federal legislative acts such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This final Act was particularly pernicious because it was not applied across the board, but targeted only at certain areas of the country. As such, it violates the spirit of the very equal protection it claims to promote. Moreover, we certainly should ask what constitutional authority lies behind the passage of such legislation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:3
The history of racism, segregation and inferior facilities that led to Brown cannot be ignored, and should not pass from our condemnation. Still, thinking people must consider the old adage that “two wrongs do not make a right.” Simply, the affects of Brown have been, at best, mixed. As this anniversary has approached there have been a large number of events and articles in the media to celebrate the decision and analyze its impact. Most people, regardless of their opinion of the decision, seem to be aware that it has not achieved its goals.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:4
In many places in our country the public school system continues to fail many American children, particularly those in the inner city. Research shows that our schools are more segregated than at any point from the 1960s. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the affects of the Brown decision. Do we really mean to celebrate the failures of forced busing? Forced integration largely led to white flight from the cities, thus making society even more segregated. Where children used to go to different schools but meet each other at the little league field, after Brown these people would now live in different cities or different counties. Thus, forced integration led only to even more segregation. A recent Washington Post article about McKinley High School makes this very point. Worse still, prior to this re-segregation racial violence was often prevalent.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:5
We need also to think about whether sacrificing quality education on the altar of equality is not a terrible mistake, especially as it applies to the opportunities available to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged. For example, research has shown that separating children on the basis of gender enhances academic performance. Attempts to have such schools have been struck down by the courts on the basis of Brown. Just last night Fox News reported the academic successes at schools separating children based on gender, as approved by this body is the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” Yet the National Organization of Women continues to oppose this policy on the basis of Brown’s “separate is inherently not equal” edict, despite the statistically evident positive impact this policy has had on the achievement of female students in mathematics and science classes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:6
Mr. Speaker, in short forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty; while they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 33:7
While I completely celebrate the end of forced segregation that Brown helped to bring about, I cannot unreservedly support this resolution as currently worded.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons

!DATE:
17 May 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 17, 2004



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 34:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident — even to its most determined advocates — we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .” Note the phrase “use all appropriate means.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 34:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions — just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 34:4
It is somewhat ironic that vie are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the U.S. government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 34:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
May 19, 2004

!TITLE:
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. Chairman, though the ill-conceived Millennium Challenge Act has already become law and therefore we are only talking about its implementation today, it is nevertheless important to again address some very fundamental problems with this new foreign aid program.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:2
I believe that the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) may be one of the worst foreign policy blunders yet - and among the most costly. It is advertised as a whole new kind of foreign aid - apparently an honest admission that the old system of foreign aid does not work. But rather than get rid of the old, bad system of foreign aid in favor of this “new and improved” system, we are keeping both systems and thereby doubling our foreign aid. I guess it is easy to be generous with other people’s money. In reality, this “new and improved” method of sending US taxpayer dollars overseas will likely work no better than the old system, and may in fact do more damage to the countries that it purports to help.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:3
The MCA budget request for fiscal year 2005 is $2.5 billion. We have been told that somewhere between 12 and 16 countries have met the following criteria for inclusion in the program: “ruling justly, investing in people, and pursuing sound economic policies.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:4
It is a good idea to pay close attention to these criteria, as they tell the real tale of this new program. First, what does “investing in people” mean? It is probably safe to assume that “investing in people” does not mean keeping taxes low and government interference to a minimum so that individuals can create wealth through private economic activity. So, in short, this program will reward socialist-style governance.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:5
In fact, this program will do much more harm than good. MCA will hurt recipient country economies. Sending US aid money into countries that are pursuing sound economic policies will not help these economies. On the contrary, an external infusion of money to governments meeting the economic criteria will actually obscure areas where an economy is inefficient and unproductive. This assistance will slow down necessary reform by providing a hidden subsidy to unproductive sectors of the economy. We thus do no favors for the recipient country in the long term with this harmful approach.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:6
MCA is a waste of taxpayer money. Countries that pursue sound economic policies will find that international financial markets provide many times the investment capital necessary for economic growth. MCA funds will not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what private capital can bring to bear in an economy with promise and potential. And this capital will be invested according to sound investment strategies - designed to make a profit - rather than allocated according to the whim of government bureaucrats.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:7
MCA is corporate welfare for politically-connected US firms. These companies will directly benefit from this purported aid to foreign countries, as the money collected from US taxpayers can under the program be transferred directly to US companies to complete programs in the recipient countries. As bad as it is for US tax dollars to be sent overseas to help poor countries, what is worse is for it to be sent abroad to help rich and politically-connected US and multi-national companies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:8
MCA encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it will force economically devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations: if the private sector is to see any of the money it will have to be in partnership with government. There should be no doubt that these foreign governments will place additional requirements on the private firms in order to qualify for funding. Who knows how much of this money will be wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power. The MCA invites political corruption by creating a slush fund at the control of foreign governments.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:9
MCA encourages a socialist approach to health care in recipient countries. In rewarding a top-down government-controlled approach to health care, the program ignores the fact that this model has failed miserably wherever it has been applied. Ask anyone in the former communist countries how they liked their government healthcare system.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:10
Finally, MCA is another tool to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Already we see that one of the countries slated to receive funds is the Republic of Georgia, where former cronies of dictator Eduard Shevardnadze staged a coup against him last year and have since then conducted massive purges of the media and state institutions, have jailed thousands in phony “anti-corruption” campaigns, and have even adopted their own political party flag as the new flag of the country. The current government in Georgia does not deserve a dime of aid from the United States.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 35:11
Though the Millennium Challenge Account is advertised as a brand new approach to foreign aid - foreign aid that really works - it is in fact expensive and counter-productive, and will be very unlikely to affect real change in the countries it purports to help. The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, to re-embrace the kind of economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, no foreign meddling. Demonstrating the effectiveness of limited government in creating wealth would be the greatest gift we could send overseas.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
June 2, 2004

!TITLE:
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed members to serve in this body. I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:2
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years (while Senators run for statewide office every six years) means that members of the House are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:4
Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency, and that the appointed representatives will only serve for a limited time. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of the House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812, nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, DC neighbor Virginia was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government- yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:6
Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering supporting H.J.Res. 83 will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a victory over republican government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.   Article I Section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency.   As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by the supporters of H.J.Res. 83.   Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:8
Last month, this body fulfilled its constitutional duty by passing HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. HR 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 or more members of the House have been killed. This proposal protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 36:9
In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J.Res. 83, since it alters the Constitution to deny the people their right to elect their representatives at a time when having elected representation may be most crucial.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
June 3, 2004

!TITLE:
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same.   Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly.   For a decade, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader-to-be in a new Iraq.   Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than 100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be leader of a new Iraqi government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:2
But something happened on the way to the coronation.   The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord.   But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet.   And that’s the problem.   Under the conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a government, or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a nationalistic Iraqi people.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:3
We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets.   Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran has never endeared us to the Iranians.   We’re supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed Chalabi turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran.   The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian intelligence passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used eagerly to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the nation bought into.   And now it looks like the intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but because it fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire Middle East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received enthusiastically.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:4
Inadvertently we served the interests of both Iran and Osama bin Laden by eliminating the very enemy they despised- Saddam Hussein.   To the Iranians delight, it was payback time for our allegiance with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:5
The serious concern is that valuable and top-secret U.S. intelligence may well have gone in the other direction: to Iran with the help of Chalabi.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:6
These serious concerns led to the dumping of the heir apparent Chalabi, the arrest of his colleagues, and the raid on his home and headquarters to seize important documents. The connection between Chalabi and the U.N. food-for-oil scandal is yet to be determined.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:7
What a mess!   But no one should be surprised.   Regime change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost always go badly.   American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life.   We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old wounds in the Middle East continue to fester.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:8
How many times have our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends, making it difficult to determine which is which?   Our relationship with Kadafi in Libya is an example of the silliness of our policy.   Does his recent “conversion” to our side qualify him for U.S. assistance?   No one can possibly predict what our relationship with Kadafi will be in a year or two from now.   My guess is that he too has a long memory.   And even if he becomes a U.S. stooge, it will only foment antagonism from his own people for his cozy relationship with the United States.   Long term, interference in the internal affairs of other nations doesn’t help us or those we support.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:9
Those who strongly argue behind the scenes that we must protect “our oil” surely should have second thoughts, as oil prices soar over $40 with our current policy of military interventionism.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:10
The real tragedy is that even those with good intentions who argue the case for our military presence around the world never achiever their stated goals.   Not only do the efforts fall short, the unintended consequences in life and limb and dollars spent are always much greater than ever anticipated.   The blow back effects literally go on for decades.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:11
The invisible economic costs are enormous but generally ignored.   A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations.   War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American.   Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit, however.   Now the grand scheme of physically rebuilding Iraq using American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with political connections.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:12
The clear failure of the policy of foreign interventionism followed by our leaders for more than a hundred years should prompt a reassessment of our philosophy.   Tactical changes, or relying more on the U.N., will not solve these problems.   Either way the burden will fall on the American taxpayer and the American soldier.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:13
The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations.   It may seem possible for the moment because we have been afforded the historically unique privilege of printing the world’s reserve currency.   Foreigners have been only too willing to take our depreciating dollars for their goods.   Economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation.   Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed.   Those who hold these trillion plus dollars can hold us hostage if it’s ever in their interest.   It may be that economic law and hostility toward the United States will combine to precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the dollar.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:14
That’s when the true wealth of the country will become self-evident and we will no longer be able to afford the extravagant expense of pursuing an American empire. No nation has ever been able to finance excessive foreign entanglements and domestic entitlements through printing press money and borrowing from abroad.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:15
It’s time we reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and strategic independence.   Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms.   Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is far better than sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:16
The principle of self-determination should be permitted for all nations and all demographically defined groups.   The world tolerated the breakup of the ruthless Soviet and Yugoslavian systems rather well, even as certain national and ethnic groups demanded self-determination and independence.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:17
This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq.   We should suggest and encourage each of the three groups- the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds- to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they want to associate with a central government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government.   Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States.   It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad.   If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:19
True defense is diminished when money and energy are consumed by activities outside the scope of specifically protecting our national security.   Diverting resources away from defense and the protection of our borders while antagonizing so many around the world actually serves to expose us to greater danger from more determined enemies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 37:20
A policy of non-intervention and strategic independence is the course we should take if we’re serious about peace and prosperity.   Liberty works!

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan

!DATE:
9 June 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know President Reagan are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of this body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:2
I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on “. . . a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . .” I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:3
Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements is the millions of Americans he helped convert to the freedom philosophy and the many he inspired to become active in the freedom movement. One of the best examples of President Reagan’s rhetorical powers is his first major national political address, “A Time for Choosing.” Delivered in 1964 in support of the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, this speech launched Ronald Reagan’s career as both a politician and a leader of the conservative movement. The following excerpt from that speech illustrates the power of Ronald Reagan’s words and message. Unfortunately, these words are as relevant to our current situation as they were when he delivered them in 1964:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:4
It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:5
This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self- government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:6
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:7
Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:8
The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:9
One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation when we where flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, ‘Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.’ ”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:10
While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related “national service” proposals:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:11
. . . it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 38:12
I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan’s family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Jobs Creation Act

!DATE:
17 June 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4520 today because the tax cuts contained in the bill outweigh the unfortunate but inevitable subsidies also included. I promise my constituents that I will vote for all tax cuts and against all new spending. So when faced with a bill that contains both, my decision is based on whether the bill cuts taxes overall, i.e. whether its ultimate impact will be to reduce or increase federal revenues. This legislation does reduce revenues, and therefore takes a small step towards reducing the size of the federal government. So while I certainly object to some parts of the bill, especially the tobacco bailout, I do support tax cuts.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 39:2
My biggest concern with the bill, however, is not based on its contents. I object to the process underlying the bill and the political reason for which it was written. This bill is on the floor for one reason and one reason only: the World Trade Organization demanded that we change our domestic tax law. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it’s not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with “international law.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 39:3
Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we’re back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 39:4
This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it’s hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 39:5
The bill does cut taxes overall, and for that reason I will vote in favor of it. Any legislation that results in less money being sent to the black hole that is the federal Treasury is worth supporting. I especially support the provision that allows Texans (and citizens of other states that do not have an income tax) to deduct state sales taxes, and will vote yes accordingly.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace

!DATE:
23 June 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As I have argued so many times in the past when legislation like this is brought to the Floor of Congress, the resolution before us is in actuality an endorsement of our failed policy of foreign interventionism. It attempts to create an illusion of our success when the truth is rather different. It seeks not peace in the Middle East, but rather to justify our continued meddling in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians. As recent history should make clear, our sustained involvement in that part of the world has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars yet has delivered no results. On the contrary, despite our continued intervention and promises that the invasion of Iraq would solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem the conflict appears as intractable as ever.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the United States is “strongly committed” to the security of Israel. I find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this legislation promises that the United States “remains committed to . . . Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.” So we are pledging to defend Israel’s borders while we are not even able to control our own borders. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on fulfilling our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 40:3
I do agree with one of the statements in this legislation, though it is hardly necessary for us to affirm that which is self-evident: “. . . Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including the right to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten the citizens of Israel.” Yes, they do. But do the Israelis really need the U.S. Congress to tell them they are free to defend themselves?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 40:4
I also must object to the one-sidedness of this legislation. Like so many that have come before it, this resolution takes sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Among other things, it affirms Israel as a “Jewish state.” Is it really our business to endorse a state church in a foreign country? What message does this send from the United States to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 40:5
Like my colleagues who have come to the floor to endorse this legislation, I would very much like to see peace in the Middle East — and elsewhere in this troubled world. But this is not the way to achieve that peace. As our Founders recognized, the best way for the United States to have peaceful relations with others is for Americans to trade freely with them. The best way to sow resentment and discontent among the other nations of the world is for the United States to become entangled in alliances with one power against another power, to meddle in the affairs of other nations. One-sided legislation such as this in reality just fuels the worst fears of the Muslim world about the intentions of the United States. Is this wise?

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
June 23, 2004

!TITLE:
Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Though I certainly recognize the legitimate national security role of our intelligence community, I have concerns about this authorization and the questionable role played by components of the intelligence community.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:2
Specifically, I am concerned about our history of secret regime changes carried out by our intelligence apparatus. More often than not, we see many of the problems we face today were created as a result of this unwise practice of forcibly changing regimes in secret.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:3
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:4
I am also concerned about the efficacy of our intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but seldom do my colleagues ask what exactly we are getting for our constituents’ money. It may be unfair that we only hear about the intelligence community’s failures and shortcomings, but we cannot help but be concerned over so many such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of the intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:5
Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence community relied heavily - perhaps almost exclusively — on Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre-determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and dollars. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 41:6
I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and instead begin looking for new ways to strengthen the legitimate functions of our intelligence community so as to better protect the borders and citizens of the United States.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposing H. Res. 676

!DATE:
23 June 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H. Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:3
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:5
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 42:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join in sponsors of H. Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting race-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H. Res. 676.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending

!DATE:
June 24, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. Speaker, I support HR 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for HR 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less constitutional government?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:2
Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill’s spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international or military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:3
Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded “surpluses” of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty Amendment (H.J.Res. 15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal government to those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:6
If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also eliminate the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to inflate the currency. Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the hidden tax of inflation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:7
In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian-conservative from Iowa, eloquently addressed the flaws in thinking that budget process reform absent the political will to cut spending would reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting Mr. Gross:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:8
Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain solvent. Every Member knows this Government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:9
Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes available the money.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 43:10
I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of Members of Congress.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Praising Private Space Exploration

!DATE:
June 25, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and commend the designers, builders, sponsors, and pilot of SpaceShipOne on the occasion of its successful flight out of earth’s atmosphere on June 21, 2004. What is most remarkable about SpaceShipOne, of course, is that it is the first privately-financed and privately built vehicle to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 44:2
SpaceShipOne was designed and built by Burt Rutan and piloted by test pilot Michael W. Melvill. It was launched successfully from Mojave California, reaching a height of 100 KM (62 miles ) above the Earth’s surface. Remarkably, SpaceShipOne is entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 44:3
According to the designers and financers of SpaceShipOne, the mission of this project is to demonstrate the viability of commercial space flight and to open the door for private space tourism. The successful completion of SpaceShipOne’s maiden voyage demonstrates that relatively modest amounts of private funding can significantly increase the boundaries of commercial space technology. It constitutes a major leap toward their goal and demonstrates that private capital and private enterprise can be applied to enormous success all on its own. Those associated with this project represent the best of our American traditions, embodied in our enterprising and pioneering spirit.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 44:4
Their success should also be read as a cautionary tale for all of us in government. If only the United States had a taxation policy that limited government and thereby freed up more private capital, there is no telling how many more like Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, and Michael Melvill would be able to do great things to the benefit all of mankind. This not just in space exploration, but in medical research, alternative energy research, and any number of the problems that continue to perplex mankind. Private enterprise depends on results and success and therefore private capital is always targeted much more wisely than is monies confiscated by governments.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 44:5
With this successful maiden voyage, SpaceShipOne is now the leading contender for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which is to be awarded to the first privately financed three-seat aircraft that reaches an altitude of 62 miles and repeats the feat within two weeks. I wish all those involved in this remarkable project the best of luck.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
American Community Survey

!DATE:
7 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 7 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for the American Community Survey.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:3
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated. But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with the American Community Survey.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:4
One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up on the front they have warned me. They said “The American Community Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:5
This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the police are there deciding they want this information.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:6
It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:7
Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:8
This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment, income, housing for the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic planning.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:9
How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual, perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24 pages here.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:10
I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the second one, and they are threatening me. I know I did not vote for it, but you who did means, you are ready to send the census police out to get me.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:11
I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I looked it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my colleagues have done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every question I do not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that he did not answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census police came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better answer all these questions or you are going to be penalized.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:12
So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if we want this information, if people need this information in the communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10 years.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:13
It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work and how long it takes you to go to work.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:14
I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all this meddling.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:15
So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the Constitution?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 45:16
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this funding.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs

!DATE:
7 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding to the Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal drugs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:2
The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is, that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to go after doctors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:3
It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400 doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem. It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the doctors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:4
As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress, developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:5
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these doctors are being prosecuted.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:6
Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this atmosphere.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:7
My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid of this idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from cancer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:8
I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:9
So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being prosecuted unfairly.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:10
And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 46:11
Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get adequate pain medication.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
UNESCO

!DATE:
7 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. PAUL:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:3
This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and had a debate on last year.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:4
Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:5
Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which was 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25 percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do not get any benefits from it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:6
And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with our educational system. It also attempts to control our education through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too, introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced, but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these programs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:7
Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:8
“The international education offers people a state of mind, international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people are saying about education in the various countries, including ours. Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.” Now, one would think that is not too bad of an idea. “The real world is not this simple,” so says UNESCO. “International education has to reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:9
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:10
But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:11
So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year, so it surely would be permitted this year.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 47:12
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Marinol And Terrorism

!DATE:
7 July 2004

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever prescribes Marinol.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:3
I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:4
The States’ rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has brought this up.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:5
But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of choice.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 48:6
I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest for a suspect that was committing terrorism. Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we could help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the laws that they already have on the books.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
End Embargo On Cuba

!DATE:
7 July 2004

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. This, to me, is a freedom issue, as the gentleman from Florida has indicated. I think everyone in this body is concerned about freedom in Cuba, and we should be, and we should do whatever we can to encourage it, but obviously some believe you can encourage freedom by sanctions, which has not worked very well, but it seems to boggle my mind that if we restrain freedom here, that we help freedom there.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:3
This is what we are doing. We are restraining the freedom of our people to send a package, and of course not dealt with in the amendment, but travel as well.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:4
The founders of this country gave strong advice to us, and for 100 years or so we followed it. They said friendship and trade with everyone who is willing, alliances with none; and that is pretty good advice. But what have we done in recent years? We have a hodgepodge when we deal with other countries.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:5
Just think of what has happened recently. We took the gentleman from Libya, the so-called gentleman Omar Qadhafi, who is now scheduled to shoot four nurses and a doctor, and we have given him normal trade sanctions, and we are going to subsidize trade with him. And here he admits to having shot down one of our airplanes or blown up one of our airplanes. He is a terrorist, but here we are dealing with him in that way.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:6
We have trade with China. Things have gone better with China, not worse.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:7
Where are the free traders? It really bothers me when I hear the free traders who promote free trade in every other area except the freedom of an American citizen to send a package to Cuba.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 49:8
I do not believe you can enhance freedom in Cuba by limiting the freedom of American citizens. We must be more open and more confident that freedom of choice by American citizens is worth something to defend; and I stand strongly for this amendment and I compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. FLAKE) for bringing it to us.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote

!DATE:
7 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Restore Rights Violated By PATRIOT Act

!DATE:
8 July 2004

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to rename this amendment and call it the “partial restoration of the fourth amendment,” and that is our attempt here. We are doing exactly what the gentleman early on suggested: this is oversight; this is our responsibility. This is the proper place to have the debate. It was the Congress that created the PATRIOT Act; it is the responsibility of the Congress to do something about it if it was a mistake. And it, indeed, was a mistake.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 51:2
I would like to think that the American people are with us entirely, and I know a large number already are with us on trying to straighten up some of the mess caused by the Patriot Act, but I would like to say that there is one basic principle that we should approach this with, something I approach all legislation with, and that is the principle of a free society is that we never have to sacrifice liberty in order to preserve it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 51:3
The whole notion that the purpose of providing freedom and liberty to this country is that we have to give up some, I do not believe is necessary. It is never necessary to give up freedom to preserve freedom. I do think we made some serious mistakes. We made a mistake in passing the PATRIOT Act under conditions of an emergency and under the conditions of post-9/11. We did not do a very good job at Tora Bora. We failed to find the individuals responsible for 9/11 and we have not concentrated on the people who committed this crime. Instead, we have decided to invade and occupy a foreign country rather than protecting and providing security here, at home providing freedom for our people and more security for this country.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
July 8, 2004

!TITLE:
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:1
All government spending represents a tax.   The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:2
The never-ending political squabble in Congress over taxing the rich, helping the poor, “Pay-Go,” deficits, and special interests, ignores the most insidious of all taxes- the inflation tax.   Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services.   Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real- the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a “tax.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:3
Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject.   Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country.   Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich.   This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:4
This neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be deliberate.   Fully recognizing the harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create public pressure to restrain spending- something the two parties don’t want.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:5
Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties.   Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy by both parties.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:6
The Left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits.   Likewise, we’ve been told by the Vice President that Ronald Reagan “proved deficits don’t matter”- a tenet of supply-side economics.   With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be surprised that spending and deficits are skyrocketing.   The vocal concerns expressed about huge deficits coming from big spenders on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding.   If Members feel so strongly about spending, Congress simply could do what it ought to do- cut spending.   That, however, is never seriously considered by either side.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:7
If those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got their way, who would benefit?   No one!   There’s no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:8
Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes.   It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid.   Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation.   Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:9
All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided.   The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up.   Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money.   Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries.   No need to soak the rich.   A good deal, it seems, for everyone.   But is it?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:10
Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone.   In fact it is the most sinister seductive “tax” of them all.   Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end.   It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:11
The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar.   Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises.   Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy.   Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating.   The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government- as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on.   This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the goodies.   But surprise- it doesn’t happen.   The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and other necessities. The freebies never come.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:12
The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air.   It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation.   This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:13
Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:14
The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding.   The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:15
This is no small matter.   In just the first 24 weeks of this year the M3 money supply increased 428 billion dollars, and 700 billion dollars in the past year.   M3 currently is rising at a rate of 10.5%.   In the last seven years the money supply has increased 80%, as M3 has soared 4.1 trillion dollars.   This bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious international imbalances to develop.   We owe just four Asian countries 1.5 trillion dollars as a consequence of a chronic and staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5% of our GDP.   This current account deficit means Americans must borrow 1.6 billion dollars per day from overseas just to finance this deficit.   This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond our means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard of living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:16
Rest assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this process.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 52:17
The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax.   The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse.   Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier.   But it certainly can make it poorer.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Requests Opposition Debate Time

!DATE:
14 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, is either gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker. I am strongly in support of this legislation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 53:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1

!DATE:
14 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I really do not have a lot of disagreement with what the chairman has to say, because I certainly think we should be friends with Taiwan. I believe our goals are very similar. It is just that the approach I have would be quite different.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:3
I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and in this body the foreign policy that was designed by our Founders, a foreign policy of nonintervention. I think it is better for us. I think it is healthy in all ways, both financially and in that it keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed to build friendships with all the nations of the world. The politics of nonintervention should be given some serious consideration.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:4
Usually, the argument given me for that is that 200 years ago or 250 years ago things were different. Today we have had to go through the Cold War and communism; and, therefore, we are a powerful Nation and we have an empire to protect; and we have this moral obligation to police the world and take care of everybody.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:5
But, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is somewhat like the notion that we no longer have to pay attention to the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. If principles were correct 200 years ago or 250 years ago, they should be correct today. So if a policy of friendship and trade with other nations and nonintervention were good 250 years ago, it should be good today.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:6
I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance, and that is what we have been warned about: “Do not get involved in entangling alliances.” It gets us so involved, we get in too deep, and then we end up with a military answer to too many of our problems. I think that is what has happened certainly in the last 50 years.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:7
I essentially have four objections to what we are doing. One is a moral objection. I will not dwell on the first three and I will not dwell on this one. But I do not believe one generation of Americans has a moral right to obligate another generation, because, in many ways, when we make this commitment, this is not just a friendly commitment; this is weapons and this is defense.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:8
Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese if the Chinese would ever attack. Although it is not explicit in the act, many people interpret it that way. But I do not believe that we or a generation 25 years ago has the moral right to obligate another generation to such an overwhelming commitment, especially if it does not involve an attack on our national security. Some say that if Taiwan would be attacked, it would be. But, quite frankly, it is a stretch to say that settling that dispute over there has something to do with an attack on our national security.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:9
Economics is another issue. We are running out of money; and these endless commitments, military commitments and commitments overseas, cannot go on forever. Our national debt is going up between $600 billion and $700 billion a year, so eventually my arguments will win out, because we are going to run out of money and this country is going to go broke. So there is an economic argument against that.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:10
Also, looking for guidance in the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution does not give us this authority to assume responsibility for everybody, and to assume the entire responsibility for Taiwan is more than I can read into the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:11
But the issue I want to talk about more than those first three is really the practical approach to what we are doing. I happen to believe that the policy of the One-China Policy does not make a whole lot of sense. We want Taiwan to be protected, so we say we have a One-China Policy, which occurred in 1982. But in order to say we have a One-China Policy, then we immediately give weapons to Taiwan to defend against China.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:12
So this, to me, just does not quite add up. If we put arms in Taiwan, why would we not expect the Chinese to put arms in opposition, because they are only answering what we are doing? What happened when the Soviets went to Cuba? They put arms there. We did not like that. What would happen if the Chinese went into Cuba or Mexico? We are not going to like that. So I think this part is in conflict with what the National Relations Act says, because we are seeking a peaceful resolution of this.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:13
So I would urge my colleagues to be cautious about this. I know this will be overwhelmingly passed; but, nevertheless, it is these types of commitments, these types of alliances that we make that commit us to positions that are hard to back away from. This is why we get into these hot wars, these shooting wars, when really I do not think it is necessary.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:14
There is no reason in the world why we cannot have friendship with China and with Taiwan. But there is something awfully inconsistent with our One-China Policy, when at the same time we are arming part of China in order to defend itself. The two just do not coexist.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:15
Self-determination, I truly believe, is worth looking at. Self-determination is something that we should champion. Therefore, I am on the strong side of Taiwan in determining what they want by self-determination. But what do we do? Our administration tells them they should not have a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent and have self-determination. So in one sense we try to help them; and, in the other sense, we say do not do it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:16
I am just arguing that we do not have to desert Taiwan. We can be very supportive of their efforts, and we can do it in a much more peaceful way and at least be a lot more consistent.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:17
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding. I just want to correct the impression the gentleman left with his observation, which implied that Taiwan is getting economic aid from the United States.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:18
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will answer that.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have not yet made my point. Taiwan is getting no economic aid from the United States.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:19
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I did not say that, so the gentleman has implied that; and that is incorrect that I said it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:20
I do know that it is a potential military base for us, because when I was in the Air Force, on more than one occasion I landed on Taiwan. So they are certainly a close military ally.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 54:21
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 2

!DATE:
14 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 55:2
Very briefly, let me mention that this last election was marred by news revealing that there was an assassination attempt. It has been very much in the news in question about the authenticity of this assassination. And, actually, the election itself is believed to be under a cloud with many people in Taiwan. So to paint too rosy a picture on that, I am pleased that they are making progress, but it is not quite as rosy as it has been portrayed here.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 55:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. MCCOLLUM).

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 3

!DATE:
14 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:2
Let me just restate my general position, because my defense is that of a foreign policy of nonintervention, sincerely believing it is in the best interests of our people and the world that we get less involved militaristically.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:3
Once again, I would like to make the point that if it is a true and correct principle because of its age, it is not negated. If it is a true principle and worked 200 years ago or 400 years ago, it is still a principle today; and it should not be discarded.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:4
I would like to just close with quoting from the Founders. First, very simply, from Jefferson. His advice was, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:5
John Quincy Adams: “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes,” and “she” is referring to us, the United States, “but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:6
And our first President. He is well- known for his farewell address, and in that address he says, “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:7
Force gets us nowhere. Persuasion is the answer. Peace and commerce is what we should pursue.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 56:8
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 1

!DATE:
15 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 17 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. PAUL: Title II of the bill is amended by striking the item relating to “MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION”.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) each will control 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Millennium Challenge Account. When this program was put in place a year ago, it was originally thought to be a program that would replace old-fashioned foreign aid, but because the votes were not there, instead of a transition from one form of foreign aid to another, it was just added on. That is the way we do things here. We keep adding on in order to satisfy everybody.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:4
So the foreign aid bill now is up to nearly $20 billion, and that represents $1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, and it is a $266 million increase from 1 year ago. So we are making “progress”, if one is a strong supporter of such programs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:5
The strongest argument of those who endorse foreign aid is a humanitarian argument: We are rich, they are poor, we have empathy, we must help, it is our moral obligation. For the most part, people go along with that. But I have a humanitarian argument, also. Mine is that it does not work and that, if we indeed care about people, we ought to be encouraging free markets and individual liberty, and that is when countries become more prosperous.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:6
But the idea that we can promote humanitarian programs by taking literally money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich, influential leaders in other countries and we are going to have this miraculous success I think is a myth. It does not work that way, and there are people who are not benefitted.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:7
Now, it may be said by those who have promoted the Millennium Challenge Account, that is exactly what we are trying to address. We want to reward countries that are moving in the direction of free markets. Now, that is a nice notion, but it cannot work. It is impossible because when we give money to a government, it is politicized. It becomes bureaucratic, and it has to be handed out to special interests.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:8
When Paul Applegarth, the chairman of the corporation for the Millennium Challenge Account was before our committee, I asked him a question. I said, are there any American companies that will benefit by this type of program? I actually was pretty shocked with his answer, because he was very blunt. He said, I certainly hope so. In other words, even our American corporations benefit from programs like this.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:9
So it would be nice to think that the poor people of these other countries are going to benefit, but I think it is a greater injury to the poor people of this country. My colleagues say the poor people of this country do not pay taxes. Well, that is incorrect, because the inflation tax is borne by the poor and the middle class, and that occurs when we spend too much money. And this is too much money spent the wrong way, and we do not have the authority to do it. Besides, how many of us ever get calls from our constituents saying please vote for more foreign aid? No, they are asking for more help here, and this distracts from it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:10
When we do not have the money, we run up the debt. Then we go and we literally print the money to pay the bills. We create the inflation and the higher cost of living, and it injures the low and middle income people the most, and they are the ones who are losing jobs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:11
So this is literally money coming out of our pockets for programs that could help us in this country.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:12
My suggestion is, since I am a moderate here in the Congress, my moderate approach would be when we have a program like this, whether it is 1.25 or the whole $20 billion, my suggestion is cut it, cut the whole thing. Let us say we cut the $20 billion of foreign aid. I would take $10 billion and put it toward the deficit, and I would join my colleagues on the left and say, look, let us fund some of these programs that are needed or are coming up short. Why are we cutting veterans benefits at the same time? Why do we cut the Corps of Engineers? Why do we not fully fund our infrastructure?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:13
This type of spending does not make any economic sense, and it does not make any moral sense.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 57:14
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Yields 2 Minutes To Rep. Keller

!DATE:
15 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. KELLER).

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 2

!DATE:
15 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:2
Let me follow up on the point I made earlier about the good intentions of a program like this to promote free market changes in certain countries, but, unfortunately, this backfires because once the money gets in the hands of the government we then require them to develop partnerships or alliances with businesses, which is exactly the opposite of free markets. This is closer to crony capitalism or fascism when we combine government money with business interests.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:3
At the same time, we know that our corporations will also participate in these programs. So the money once again leaves the people of this country, many times the poor, and goes to these foreign aid programs which subsidize certain governments, solidifying powers of certain politicians, which then allows fungibility of their other funds to do other things and then encourage business partnerships between government and business which is not free markets, which literally is undermining the move that I think is intended and that is to improve the conditions of other countries.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:4
If the conditions of a country are amenable to capitalism and investment, there is never a problem of a lack of investors. The fact that we have to do this, that means there are flaws in the system. This will not improve it. It actually makes it worse. Just because you have partnership with businesses does not mean you are moving toward free enterprise. That means you are moving toward a system of interventionism, or crony capitalism. It is not true reform.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:5
So a program like this actually does the reverse. It has unintended consequences. It makes our problems worse. And, besides, we do not have the right to do it. We do not have the constitutional authority to do it, and we certainly do not have a moral authority to undermine the poor people of this country by making the conditions worse here.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:6
For this reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote “yes” on this amendment.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 59:7
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Financing Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005

!DATE:
15 July 2004

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, and I am a coauthor of it, mentioned that it has a broad spectrum of individuals supporting it. He mentioned progressives and liberals and conservatives and moderates, but he forgot the libertarians.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:2
Libertarians support this as well and for a precise reason. A free market libertarian does not believe in welfare for anybody, let alone the rich, and it is particularly gnawing to see the subsidies go to the very wealthy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:3
I am in strong support of this amendment, but, like the gentleman from California, I do not support this for the purpose of collecting more taxes, but I do think it is a message to us here that if we do not revise our tax system and our regulatory system we will prompt more and more business to leave this country.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:4
So there are two issues here, but corporate welfare and subsidies should have no part in this. There is no room for it. It is wrong.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:5
Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China. Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong with a system like that.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:6
There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations, we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:7
What it does is it distorts the market and causes people to do the wrong thing, and some individuals do not get the credit is obviously the case, but what we need to do is to have a much more oriented free market. When we direct it this way, even those companies may do more than they ordinarily would, and that participates in the economic bubble that occurs, of course, for other reasons as well. Then there has to be corrections. But if one is in a powerful position in a place where they can qualify, and 80 percent of this goes to the very, very large companies, although there are a lot of companies that receive the big bucks, and big countries like China.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 60:8
This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export-Import Bank.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposing Aid To Pakistan

!DATE:
15 July 2004

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:2
I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the $300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:3
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:4
The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the world and we would all be better off for it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:5
I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:6
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:7
There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:8
We have helped people who have been arch enemies for years. Take Greece and Turkey. We helped both sides. But not only do we help both sides of a lot of these fights that have been going on for a long time, we literally help our enemies. Just think of the support we gave Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and just think of our alliance with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when we did provide him with a lot of destructive weapons. That type of policy does not add up. It does not make a lot of sense. It is not in our best interests, and my suggestion here is hopefully somewhere along the way, we will take a serious look at this and redirect our foreign policy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:9
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:10
In the past we have been arch enemies of Libya, but now we have decided they will be our friends. And I am not against that in particular, but I am against giving them subsidies and helping them out.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 61:11
There is such a difference between neutrality and friendship and that of giving weapons and arms and promoting antagonisms.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote

!DATE:
15 July 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
July 15, 2004

!TITLE:
End the Two-Party Monopoly!



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. Speaker, political operatives across the country are using state ballot access laws to deny voters the opportunity to support independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. For example, one New York election lawyer publicly stated that partisan election lawyers should take advantage of New York’s complex and costly ballot access procedures to keep Mr. Nader off the New York ballot. Meanwhile, a state party chairman in Arizona has hired a team of lawyers for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. Nader off the Arizona ballot.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 63:2
The effort to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot shows how ballot access laws preserve the two-party monopoly over the political system by effectively disenfranchising supporters of third parties and independent candidates. While the campaign against Mr. Nader is an extreme case, supporters of the two-party monopoly regularly use ballot access laws to keep third party and independent candidates off ballots. Even candidates able to comply with onerous ballot access rules must devote so many resources to simply getting on the ballot that their ability to communicate ideas to the general public is severely limited. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42% of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or have registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 63:3
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish national standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced the Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for ballot access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on a level playing field.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 63:4
The blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a political monopoly, limit voter choices, and deny the rights of millions of Americans who support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to effectively participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to remedy this situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny

!DATE:
July 22, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.   HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:2
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges.   They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.   For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold.   With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June.   The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.   Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws.   Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference.   But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:4
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:5
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages , to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions.   This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:6
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation.   The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:7
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:8
 Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:9
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church- not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 64:10
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Hands Off Sudan!

!DATE:
July 23, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, “Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.” This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution “urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.” We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never marked-up in the House International Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that committee had no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to the Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was rushed onto the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for “non-controversial” legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if Members had more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution’s call for US military action in Sudan - particularly at a time when our military is stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposes Commemorating 9/11

!DATE:
9 September 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am forced to rise in opposition to this legislation, I do so despite my desire to commemorate the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001 and again express my sympathy to the families of the victims. But don’t be fooled by the label. This legislation is no mere commemoration of the events of September 11, 2001. Rather, it is page after page of Congressional self-congratulation. It is page after page of praise for policies that have made us no safer from terrorist attack, but that have certainly made us much less free at home. Does it not strike anyone else as a bit unseemly for Congress to be congratulating itself on this solemn occasion?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:2
This legislation is an endorsement of the policy of restricting freedoms at home that I have consistently opposed, including praise for the creation of the bloated and impotent Department of Homeland Security, the liberty-killing PATRIOT Act, and many other futile measures. It praises the notoriously ineffective air marshal program while avoiding altogether one of the most important lessons of the September 11, 2001 tragedy; The entire disaster could have been avoided with just one gun in the hands of each of the pilots. Four guns could have prevented September 11, 2001, but we are no closer to arming pilots than we were on September 10, 2001. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced a bill to allow pilots to be armed. Eventually, a version of that bill was passed, but pilots are still not armed. I also introduced several other bills to deal with the attacks of 9/11, protect us against future attacks, and do so without sacrificing our liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:3
What this legislation does not do is address some of the real causes of the hatred that lead others to wish to harm us. Why should we bother to understand the motivations of madmen and murderers? It is not to sympathize with them or their cause. It is to ensure our self-preservation. Those who oppose us and who have attacked us have made it very clear: They oppose our foreign policy of interventionism and meddling, and they oppose our one-sided approach to the Middle East. Therefore, mitigating the anger against us could be as simple as returning to the foreign policy recommended by our forefathers. We should not be stationing hundreds of thousands of our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, guarding their borders while our own remain open to terrorist infiltration. We should not be meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries, nor should we be involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We should not be sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to “build nations” and “export democracy” at the barrel of a gun.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:4
Many of my colleagues like to repeat the mantra that “freedom is under attack” in the United States. Well, they are right. Freedom is under attack in the United States, but not only from foreign terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that rushes to pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act, that guts civil liberties in the United States. Freedom is under attack from those who are rushing to create a national biometric identification card and internal check-points, which will force innocent Americans to prove to government authorities that they are not terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy at an unprecedented pace. Freedom is under attack from a foreign policy that generates millions of enemies across the globe.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:5
This legislation praises the number of Coast Guard boardings as one example of success, but we should not take a false sense of security from boardings. Rather, we should claim victories only if we have stopped another planned attack. Both shippers and recreational users of the gulf ports I represent have expressed concern about our new Federal policies and practices.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 66:6
If we fail to heed the real lessons of September 11, 2001, we may well be condemned to see such tragedies repeated again in our land. It unfortunately seems that this is exactly what we are doing.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 1

!DATE:
9 September 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to create or implement any new universal mental health screening program.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill will be permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental health screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a commission established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health screening for all our children in our public schools as well as adults who work in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian, and a strict constitutionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan, as dangerous and nonproductive.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:4
This type of screening would surely lead to a lot more treatment of hyperactive kids. We already have an epidemic in our schools today that are overtreated. Too often under these conditions, children are coerced into taking medicine. It has been known that parents who have denied medication for their children have been accused of child abuse. There is already tremendous pressure on parents to allow public school officials to put children on medication like Ritalin.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:5
This amendment would not deny, in the routine course of events, medical treatment for those who are suffering from mental disease. What my concern is for a universal screening test of all children for mental illness.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:6
Diagnosis in psychiatry is mostly subjective. It is very difficult to come up with objective criteria. If we wanted psychiatrists to perform the test to make it more objective, it would be impossible. We are talking about an unbelievable number of psychiatrists that are not available, so nonpsychiatrists would be doing this testing.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:7
One of the worst downsides from a program like this would be for a child to be put on a list as having some type of mental disorder.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:8
An unruly child is going to be the first one to be determined as mentally disturbed. It is happening all the time. Those are the individuals that are hyperactive even in a normal sense and end up on Ritalin.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:9
But can you imagine a list of this sort? They claim it will be private, but can you imagine if there is a list that has identified an individual as a possible candidate for violence? And what if he were to be hired by an important industry? What if the post office was to hire this individual and he was on this list and we did not make this information available to the hiring authorities? That means there would be tremendous pressure to make public officials use this list for reasons that I think would be very, very negative.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:10
The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective standards.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 67:11
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 2

!DATE:
9 September 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:2
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment was misconstrued by the previous speaker, because it would not deny medical care. What it does is it denies the authority to the administration to have universal screening of all children in public school. It does not deny care to any individual that may qualify.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:3
Already the SAT tests have now been changed to incorporate having the students write a paragraph about personal beliefs and their world view. Can you not see the connection? If one has a strange world view or a strange personal belief, if you have a prejudice or whatever one may be deemed mentally ill.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:4
This is a dangerous idea and a notion that has been used by totalitarian societies throughout the ages. Just think of the extreme of this if this is not nipped in the bud, as happened in the Soviet system. People were not always convicted of crimes; but they were put in psychiatric hospitals to be retrained, to be conditioned to think differently and politically correct.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:5
When we see a monopoly school system, a universal school system, talking about standardizing what they think is sound mental health, believe me, we are treading on dangerous ground.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 68:6
I would like to restate once again, this amendment does not deny treatment to any individual that is pointed out to have medical needs. This goes along with the principles of reasonable cause. They cannot go in and search our houses, or at least they are not supposed to, without a reasonable cause. We should not go into these kids’ minds without reasonable cause and sort out this kind of information.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Demands Recorded Vote

!DATE:
9 September 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Constitution

!DATE:
23 September 2004

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government throughout history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:2
Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the inevitable corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution. The notion of separate States and local governments championed by the followers of Jefferson was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following ratification of the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:3
Early on the supporters of strong centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism, mercantilism and subsidies for corporate interests.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:4
Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:5
The Civil War will finally change the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:6
Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:7
We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative and the judicial branches. Our legislative leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty and our republican form of government.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:8
Today, the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, create legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their district, thus qualifying themselves for automatic reelection.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:9
The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty, but our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing and regulating. The complacent electorate who are led to believe their interests and needs are best served by a huge bureaucratic welfare state convince themselves that enormous Federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with on another day.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:10
The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain their confidence in the benefits of liberty and demand it from their elected leaders, Congress will act appropriately.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:11
The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly and return our Nation to its proper republican origins. The result would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and a world made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire. No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside of the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:12
The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it is understandable that abuse occurs, but it should not be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace, and the Constitution loses all meaning. Unfortunately, that is where we are today.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:13
The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document, but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 70:14
I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve the next partisan victory; the real question is whether or not we will once again accept the clear restraints placed in the power of the national government by the Constitution. Obviously, the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important “election” of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it is worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant constitution with which we have been so blessed.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
September 23, 2004

!TITLE:
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 71:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 71:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges , who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 71:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 71:5
Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act

!DATE:
29 September 2004


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear arms in Washington, DC.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:2
H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun registration in other countries has created government lists of who owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one’s own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family even in his own home.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:3
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, DC’s recent history as the murder capital of the United States. Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the exercise of that right has been most restricted.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:4
A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes, including murders, in Washington, DC, is due in part to restrictions on the exercise of the right to bear arms. When potential victims are likely armed, criminals think twice about committing violent crimes; a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent to crime. Across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, Virginia does not have this horrific crime and murder rate. Yet, people in Virginia can buy, own, and even carry guns in public.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:5
I am hopeful that the House’s consideration of H.R. 3193 indicates a new openness to legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional and dangerous restrictions on Americans’ right to bear arms. For years, federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws, even though they have no authority to do so. Crime control, the stated reason for passing gun control laws in the first place, is a function belonging to the states.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 72:7
In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R. 3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too long in coming, I am glad that the House is finally considering this important issue. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would restore some much needed respect for the fundamental rights of people in Washington, DC.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
September 30, 2004

!TITLE:
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:2
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:5
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!   I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority  by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:9
In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 73:10
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
<-- CR URL http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H8072&position=all -->
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
October 5, 2004

!TITLE:
Reject a National Prescription Database



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.   This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care.   As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors.   This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain.   These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:3
Doctors and their staffs may even be prosecuted because of a patient’s actions that no doctor approved or even knew about.   A doctor has no way of controlling if a patient gives some of the prescribed medication away or consumes a prescribed drug in a dangerous combination with illegal drugs or other prescription drugs obtained from another source.   Nonetheless, doctors can be subjected to prosecution when a patient takes such actions.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:4
Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has created the illusion of some success in the war on drugs.   Investigating drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work.   In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices and prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing.   Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success.   All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain.   Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs.   Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:7
HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy.   A patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor.   In contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:8
Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it.   Why should someone be prevented from denying the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:9
One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law establishing a medical ID for every American.   Under the guise of “protecting privacy,” the Health and Human Services’ so-called “medical privacy” regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records — without your consent!   Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 74:10
Please join me in opposing HR 3015 — legislation that, if enacted, will make us less free and less healthy.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Reject Draft Slavery

!DATE:
October 5, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms.   The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:2
The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated it.   Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, “The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,” while President William Clinton’s Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that, “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”   


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:3
However, the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded.   Former President Ronald Regan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979:   “...[conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea .”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:4
Some say the 18-year old draftee “owes it” to his (or her, since HR 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country.   Hogwash!   It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:5
All drafts are unfair.   All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted.   By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.   All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:6
Economic hardship is great in all wars.   War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.   The great tragedy of war is that it enables the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people.   Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:7
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription — forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote.  The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, wars that too often are not even declared by the Congress.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:8
Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end.   But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny.   A free society must always resort to volunteers.   Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman.   This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 75:9
A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all tempts to bring back the draft.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
October 6, 2004

!TITLE:
No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act. This bill forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans .


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:3
The commission recommends the government implement universal or mandatory mental- health screening in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to such screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive,” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin against their parents’ wishes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:4
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in two to four-year old children from 1991 to 1995!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:5
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet parents  already are being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federal mental-health screener makes the recommendation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:6
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions.  Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 76:7
Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Let Raise Their Kids Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom

!DATE:
October 8, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (HR 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will make us less free.   HR 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation’s vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:2
Disturbingly, HR 10 creates a de facto national ID card by mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued drivers licenses and birth certificates and even require including biometric identifiers in such documents. State drivers license information will be stored in a national database, which will include information about an individual’s driving record!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:3
Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple.   Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs.   Nonsense!   This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.   It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.   Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.   


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:4
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans.   This is what happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:5
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance).   Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”   Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists.   It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:7
Congress could promote both liberty and security by encouraging private property owners to take more responsibility to protect themselves and their property.   Congress could enhance safety by removing the roadblocks thrown up by the misnamed Transportation Security Agency that prevent the full implementation of the armed pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was ruled out of order.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:8
I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the US Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:9
Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced several pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of   Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to justice those who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:10
The foreign policy provisions of HR 10 are similarly objectionable and should be strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the serious shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, upon whose report this legislation is based. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page report there is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will not be safer.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:11
Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a section providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of the United Nations “Democracy Caucus.” Worse still, the bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into our State department.   The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:12
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:13
This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending United States’ taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media, which inexplicably are referred to as “independent media.” This is an unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally, does anyone believe that citizens of countries where the US subsidizes certain media outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a certain editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to foreign media funded by the US government as “independent media.” The US government should never be in the business of funding the media, either at home or abroad.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:14
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 77:15
For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vigorously oppose HR 10. It represents the worst approach to combating terrorism — more federal bureaucracy, more foreign intervention, and less liberty for the American people.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
November 17, 2004

!TITLE:
Honoring Phil Crane



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Crane. During his 35 years in Congress, Phil has been one of the House’s most consistent defenders of low taxes, free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty. I count myself among the numerous elected officials and activists in the free-market movement who have been inspired by his example.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:2
As a conservative professor, author, and activist, Phil was already a nationally known conservative leader before he ran for Congress. Two of his books, “The Democrat’s Dilemma” and “The Sum of Good Government” stand out as conservative classics that educated and motivated many conservative activists. Among the attributes that have made Phil a hero to the free-market movement is his understanding of sound economics. Phil is one of the few members of Congress who is well versed in the teachings of great free-market teachers such as Ludwig von Misses. This country would be much better off if more representatives understood economics as well as Phil Crane.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:3
When Phil Crane came to Congress in the late sixties, there were only a handful of members supporting free-markets. This was a time when a “conservative” president imposed wage and price controls and “conservative” representatives and senators called for balancing the budget with tax increases rather than spending cuts. Thanks in large part to Phil’s effort; the political and intellectual climate of the nation became more receptive to free-market ideas. Phil’s work with groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Republican Study Committee (which he founded) played a major role in growing the movement for individual liberty. Phil’s service as an advisor to Young Americans for Freedom and as a director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Hillsdale College, and the Ashbrook Center helped inspire new generations of young people to become active in the movement for liberty.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:4
When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal government, I was pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:5
As the number of representatives committed to free-markets and low taxes increased, Phil’s status as a congressional leader and accomplished legislator grew. Thanks in large part to Phil’s leadership; Congress has provided tax relief to American families and businesses during each of the last four years.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 78:6
As his distinguished congressional career draws to a close, I hope all who value free-markets, individual liberty, and limited government will join me in thanking Phil Crane for his work on behalf of freedom.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
November 18, 2004

!TITLE:
 Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again engaging in fiscal irresponsibility and endangering the American economy by raising the debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion dollars. One particularly troubling aspect of today’s debate is how many members who won their seats in part by pledging never to raise taxes, will now vote for this tax increase on future generations without so much as a second thought.  Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today.  Does anyone really believe this will be the last time, that Congress will tighten its belt if we just grant it one last loan?  What a joke!  There is only one approach to dealing with an incorrigible spendthrift: cut him off. 


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:2
The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal government’s debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:3
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:4
The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:5
Over the last three years, we have witnessed an unprecedented explosion in federal spending. The national debt has actually increased an average of $16 billion a day since September 30, 2003!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:6
Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect government spending will exceed this new limit next year!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:7
Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt instruments?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:8
The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet, since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 79:9
The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card.  Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War

!DATE:
November 19, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

House Amendments to Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived, counter-productive legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today, in talks with the UN, the two sides pledged to end the fighting.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 80:2
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country’s 48 years of existence. Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook states that Sudan’s Christians, who make up five percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 80:3
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to be two to three million - several times the estimated toll in Sudan.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 80:4
At a time when we have just raised the debt-ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the US assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the US determines.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 80:5
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Where To From Here?

!DATE:
November 20, 2004
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:1
The election of 2004 is now history.   It’s time to ponder our next four years.   Will our country become freer, richer, safer, and more peaceful, or will we continue to suffer from lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist threats, and an expanding war in the Middle East and central Asia?     Surely the significance of the election was reflected in its intensity and divisiveness.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:2
More people voted for President Bush than any other presidential candidate in our history.   And because of the turnout, more people voted against an incumbent president than ever before.   However, President Bush was reelected by the narrowest popular vote margin of any incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.   The numbers are important and measurable; the long-term results are less predictable.   The president and many others have said these results give the President a “mandate.”   Exactly what that means and what it may lead to is of great importance to us all.   Remember, the nation reelected a president in 1972 with a much bigger mandate who never got a chance to use his political capital.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:3
The bitter campaign and the intensity with which both sides engaged each other implies that a great divide existed between two competing candidates with sharply different philosophies.   There were plenty of perceived differences — obviously — or a heated emotional contest wouldn’t have materialized.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:4
The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values.    It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with a majority of American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known through their support for President Bush.   This contributed to the “mandate” the President received more than any other issue.   But it begs the question:   If the mandate given was motivated by views held on moral values, does the President get carte blanche on all the other programs that are much less conservative?   It appears the President and his neo-con advisors assume the answer is yes.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:5
Ironically, the reason the family and moral values issue played such a big role in the election is that on other big issues little difference existed between the two candidates.            


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:6
Interesting enough, both candidates graduated from Yale and both were members of the controversial and highly secretive Skull and Bones Society.   This fact elicited no interest with the media in the campaign.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:7
Both candidates supported the Iraq War and the continuation of it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:8
Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:9
Both supported the UN and the internationalism of UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:10
Both candidates agreed that a president can initiate war without a declaration by Congress.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:11
Both supported foreign interventionism in general, foreign aid, and pursuing American interests by maintaining a worldwide American empire.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:12
Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:13
Both supported expanding entitlements, including programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, medical benefits, and federal housing programs.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:14
Both candidates supported deficit financing. Both candidates supported increased spending in almost all categories.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:15
Though President Bush was more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this in reality has limited value if spending continues to grow.    All spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it’s the inflation “tax,” whereby printing press money pays the bills and the “tax” is paid through higher prices — especially by the poor and the middle class.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:16
The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting.   The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration such as pharmaceuticals, HMO’s, and the weapons industry.   The Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following day:   “Winner is Big Business.”   The stock market rally following the election likely will be short-lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are still in place.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:17
More important was the reaction of the international exchange markets immediately following the election.   The dollar took a dive and gold rose.   This indicated that holders of the trillions of dollars slushing around the world interpreted the results to mean that even with conservatives in charge, unbridled spending will not decrease and will actually grow.   They also expect the current account deficit and our national debt to increase.   This means the economic consequence of continuing our risky fiscal and monetary policy is something Congress should be a lot more concerned about.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:18
One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying,   “Bush getting reelected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and higher gold prices.”   Another broker added,   “Four more years of Bush is a gift to the gold markets — more war, more deficits, more division.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:19
During the Bush administration gold surged 70%, as the dollar lost 30% of its value.   A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it’s argued that it helps our exporters.   People who work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the money supply by our government officials.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:20
The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most realize in Washington.   Our current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion, pose a threat to our standard of living.   Unfortunately, when the crisis hits our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous period of economic weakness.   Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is not sustainable. We borrow $1.8 billion a day!   The solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign commitments, foreign wars, empire overseas, and the ever-growing entitlement system here at home.   This change is highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it certainly is not on the administration’s agenda for the next four years.   That’s why the world is now betting against the dollar.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:21
When the shift in sentiment comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars will come back home.   They will be used to buy American assets, especially real property.   In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans when Japan, which was then in the driver’s seat of the world economy, started “buying up America.”   This time a lot more dollars will be repatriated.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:22
It’s important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion.   These obligations obviously cannot be met.   This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:23
One cannot expect the needed changes to occur soon, considering that these options were not even considered or discussed in the campaign.   But just because they weren’t part of the campaign, and there was no disagreement between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn’t distract from their significance nor disqualify these issues from being crucial in the years to come.   My guess is that in the next four years little legislation will be offered dealing with family and moral issues.   Foreign policy and domestic spending, along with the ballooning deficit, will be thrust into the forefront and will demand attention.   The inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and their determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, will force a financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further challenged as the reserve currency of the world on international exchange markets.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:24
There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.”   The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses.   I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security.   This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession — and do little to enhance homeland security.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:25
The only thing that allows our borrowing from foreigners to continue is the confidence they place in our economic system, our military might, and the dollar itself.   This is all about to change.   Confidence in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas and with a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting to erode.   Besides, paper money — and that’s all the U.S. dollar is — always fails when trust is lost.   That’s a fact of history, not someone’s opinion.   Be assured trust in paper money never lasts forever.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:26
The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level.   And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim.   Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises.   Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:27
Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:28
We’re more likely to see entitlements and domestic spending continue to increase. There are zero plans for reigning in the Department of Education, government medical care, farm subsidies, or federal housing programs.   Don’t expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be challenged.   One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the last four years, with much of the tax money spent on “arts” ironically being used to attack family values.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:29
Deficits never were much of a concern for Democrats, and the current Republican leadership has firmly accepted the supply-sider argument that “deficits don’t matter,” as Vice President Cheney declared according to Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:30
Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the recent election.   Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia.   Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and occupation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:31
A casual attitude has emerged regarding civil liberties.   The post 9-11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some of our personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the Patriot Act.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:32
No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government.   The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration.   The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:33
President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy:   “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.   They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads.   But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.”   Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist attack.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:34
There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable.   As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings.   Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion.   The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last.   It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds.   Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets.   It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:35
The debt, both domestic and foreign, is difficult to comprehend.   Our national debt is $7.4 trillion, and this limit will be raised in the lame duck session.   This plus our U.S. foreign debt breaks all records, and is a threat to sustained economic growth.   The amazing thing is that deficits and increases in the debt limit no longer have a stigma attached to them.   Some demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily raised.   With stronger partisan control over Congress, the president will have even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary.   It is now acceptable policy to spend excessively without worrying about debt limits.   It may be a sign of the times, but the laws of economics cannot be repealed and eventually a price will be paid for this extravagance.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:36
Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis.   But liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and now president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching.   He talks of,   “A kind of global balance of financial terror” that we should be concerned about.   He goes on to say:   “there is surely something off about the world’s greatest power being the world’s greatest debtor.   In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?”   An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks “now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.”


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:37
We must remember the Soviet system was not destroyed from without by military confrontation; it succumbed to the laws of economics that dictated communism a failure, and it was unable to finance its empire.   Deficit-financed welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, and Empire, American style, are no more economically sound than the more authoritarian approach of the Soviets.   If one is concerned with the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that exist already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more intense.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:38
The Crucial Moral Issue — Respect for Life
It has been said that a society is defined by how it treats its elderly, its infirm, its weak, its small, its defenseless, and its unborn.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:39
The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most important issue of our age.   It is imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth.   This moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in today’s society as we witnessed in the recent election.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:40
This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling.   In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion.   This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade.   The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws.   It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:41
I’ve wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice.   Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways.   First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life.   Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government.   The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion.   Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process.   The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level.   Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution.   This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:43
The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions.   The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage.   The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values.   The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands.   The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny.   Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone.   They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us.   It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:44
To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservative Christians.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:45
One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the policy and its disastrous results require our attention and criticism.   Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions, cannot be ignored — nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial costs, and the lost liberties.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:46
Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars.   I’d like to make a few points about this different understanding:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:47
First :   The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress.   If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented.   And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure.   Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:48
Second :   A defensive war is morally permissible and justified, even required.   Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat.   For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many nations in making this decision.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:49
Third :   The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this:   “Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?”   The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home?


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:50
Fourth :   Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side?   Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?   Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture?   Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them?   Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East?   By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:51
Fifth :   Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense.   Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home.   Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:52
Sixth :   What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated?   A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging.   The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders.   Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria.   There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace.   Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.  


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:53
To not be repulsed and outraged over our failed policy undermines our commitment to pro-life and moral values.   Of course it’s hard for many Americans to be outraged since so few know or even care about cities like Fallujah.   The propaganda machine has achieved its goal of ignorance and denial for most of our citizens.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:54
Main Street America will rise up in indignation only after conditions in the Persian Gulf deteriorate further, many more American lives are lost, and the cost becomes obvious and prohibitive.   It’s sad, but only then will we consider changing our policy.   The losses likely to occur between now and then will be tragic indeed.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:55
Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of pre-emptive war.   Yet that’s exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:56
What can’t be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have stirred up Russian and Chinese animosity.   Their concern for their own security may force us to confront much greater resistance than we have met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:57
A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources.   This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire.   The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:58
By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible.   Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member of the family killed by infidels/Americans.   For each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there’s a family that feels a moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:59
Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes in Lebanon.   Reagan spoke boldly that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 1983.   But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed.   He wrote about the incident in his autobiography:   “Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle.   Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to re-think our policy there.”   Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in that fruitless venture.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:60
Too bad our current foreign policy experts don’t understand the “irrationality of Middle Eastern politics”.   By leaving Lebanon, Reagan saved lives and proved our intervention in the Lebanese war was of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:61
Reagan’s willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and proved to be life-saving.   True to form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan’s decision.   To them force and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing policy accordingly.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:62
One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we’re fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and “democratization” to solve our problems.   The notion that the Iraq war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and security here at home.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:63
We must come to realize that we’re fighting an ideology that is totally alien to us.   Within that ideology the radical Islamists and the traditional tribal customs are in conflict with more moderate and secular Muslims.   We’re seen as intruding in this family feud, and thus serve the interests of the radicals as we provide evidence that they are under attack by Western crusaders.   With each act of violence the hatred between the two is ratcheted upward, as fighting spreads throughout the entire Muslim world.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:64
Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in the Middle East encourages a similar conflict here at home among Christians.   The conservative Christian community too often sounds militantly pro-war.   Too many have totally forgotten the admonition “blessed are the peacemakers.”   This contrasts with the views of some Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly un-Christian.   Though civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly contested every day.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:65
A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and will not end well.   The more we fight and the more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud — and out of their countries.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:66
It’s clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the President’s re-election.   Though many may well have voted for the family/moral values touted by the President and mishandled by Senator Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that our policy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with pro-family and pro-life values.   This seems strange indeed, since a strong case can be made that the conservative Christian Right, those most interested in the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest defenders of peace and reject unnecessary pre-emptive war.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:67
Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of pre-emptive war:


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:68
1.       The Constitution is on the side of peace.   Under the Constitution — the law of the land — only Congress can declare war.   The president is prohibited from taking us to war on his own.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:69
2.       The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:70
3.       The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even with noble intentions.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:71
4.       The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:72
5.       America faces a 7.5 trillion dollar national debt that is increasing by 600 billion dollars per year.   Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we cannot afford.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:73
6.       History shows the size of the state always grows when we’re at war.   Under conditions of war civil liberties are always sacrificed — thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of the country.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:74
7.       Those who understand the most important function of our national government is to provide strong national defense should realize that having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:75
8.       The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other civil wars.   “Blowback” from our policies is not imaginary.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:76
9.       Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low taxes and less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those interested in peace and commerce.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:77
10.   A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the trappings of the new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the generous use of sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency devaluations. They are only too willing to defer to the World Trade Organization and allow it to dictate our trade and tax policies.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 81:78
Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of “peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE


!DATE:
December 7, 2004

!TITLE:
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine



!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. Chairman: President Bush said last week that, “Any election (in Ukraine), if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence.”  I agree with the president wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it seems that several US government agencies saw things differently and sent US taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in an attempt to influence the outcome.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:2
We do not know exactly how many millions — or tens of millions — of dollars the United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — both American and Ukrainian — millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:3
Let me add that I do not think we should be supporting either of the candidates. While I am certainly no supporter of Viktor Yushchenko, I am not a supporter of his opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, either. Simply, it is none of our business who the Ukrainian people select to be their president. And, if they feel the vote was not fair, it is up to them to work it out.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:4
How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know thus far is that the US government, through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the US-based Freedom House.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:5
PAUCI then sent US Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:6
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Centre for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the US Government through PAUCI, but on its website you will find that the front page in the English section features a prominent orange ribbon, the symbol of Yushchenko’s party and movement. Reading further on, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board!


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:7
And this NGO is not the only one the US government funds that is openly supportive of Viktor Yushchenko. The Western Ukraine Regional Training Center, as another example, features a prominent USAID logo on one side of its website’s front page and an orange ribbon of the candidate Yushchenko’s party and movement on the other. By their proximity, the message to Ukrainian readers is clear: the US government supports Yushchenko.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:8
The Center for Political and Law Reforms, another Ukrainian NGO funded by the US government, features a link at the top of its website’s front page to Viktor Yushchenko’s personal website. Yushchenko’s picture is at the top of this US government funded website.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:9
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the US government “for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide.” According to the organization’s website, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:10
As I have said, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. There may be many more such organizations involved in this twisted tale.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:11
It is clear that a significant amount of US taxpayer dollars went to support one candidate in Ukraine. Recall how most of us felt when it became known that the Chinese government was trying to funnel campaign funding to a US presidential campaign. This foreign funding of American elections is rightly illegal. Yet, it appears that that is exactly what we are doing abroad. What we do not know, however, is just how much US government money was spent to influence the outcome of the Ukrainian election.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:12
Dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program alone, and this is only one of many programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine. We do not know how many millions of US taxpayer dollars the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sent to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute. Nor do we know how many other efforts, overt or covert, have been made to support one candidate over the other in Ukraine.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:13
That is what I find so disturbing: there are so many cut-out organizations and sub-grantees that we have no idea how much US government money was really spent on Ukraine, and most importantly how it was spent. Perhaps the several examples of blatant partisan support that we have been able to uncover are but an anomaly. I believe Congress and the American taxpayers have a right to know. I believe we urgently need an investigation by the Government Accounting Office into how much US government money was spent in Ukraine and exactly how it was spent. I would hope very much for the support of Chairman Hyde, Chairman Lugar, Deputy Assistant Secretary Tefft, and my colleagues on the Committee in this request.


!CITE:
2004 Ron Paul 82:14
President Bush is absolutely correct: elections in Ukraine should be free of foreign influence. It is our job here and now to discover just how far we have violated this very important principle, and to cease any funding of political candidates or campaigns henceforth. 
 Volume 2005 — The Book of Ron Paul


2005 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Parental Consent Act

!DATE:
4 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State Governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental- health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally- funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:3
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in two- to four-year-old children from 1991 to 1995.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:4
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:5
Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally- funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:6
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental- health diagnosis manuals admit that mental- health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally- funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 1:7
Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental- health screening threatens to undermine parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act

!DATE:
4 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid Federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this Nation’s Founders.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:4
Congressionally mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provision buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:6
Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing State IDs. However, the “intelligence” reform legislation imposed Federal standards in a Federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your State. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian States, not free republics.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:7
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, Federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician- patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:9
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:10
In addition to forbidding the Federal Government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the Federal Government from blackmailing States into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding Federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of Federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe States into obeying Federal dictates.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:11
Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:13
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:14
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:15
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:16
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:18
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 2:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act

!DATE:
4 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 3:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 3:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 3:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Social Security Preservation Act

!DATE:
4 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest- bearing instruments.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 4:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 4:3
With federal deficits reaching historic levels the pressure from special interests for massive new raids on the trust fund is greater than ever. Thus it is vital that Congress act now to protect the trust fund from big spending, pork- barrel politics. Social Security reform will be one of the major issues discussed in this Congress and many of my colleagues have different ideas regarding how to best preserve the long-term solvency of the program. However, as a medical doctor, I know the first step in treatment is to stop the bleeding, and the Social Security Preservation Act stops the bleeding of the Social Security trust fund. I therefore call upon all my colleagues, regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
January 6, 2005

!TITLE:
Government IDs and Identity Theft



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation’s founders.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:6
Nationalizing standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple.   Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing state IDs.   However, the “intelligence” reform legislation imposed federal standards in a federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.   It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.   Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.  


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:7
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans.   This is what happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:9
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:10
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:11
Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:13
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:14
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:15
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:16
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy'” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:18
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 5:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention

!DATE:
26 January 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, what if it was all a big mistake? America’s foreign policy of intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:2
But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just a bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:3
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting, hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:4
If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic’s goal of peace, commerce and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that George Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:5
As a physician, I would like to draw an analogy. In medicine, mistakes are made. Man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicine are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups and double- checks the diagnoses, treatment and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:6
But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence, refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure my colleagues the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bull-headed behavior.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:7
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to examine them, there is little that victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:8
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire-building.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:9
Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment, but tragically, the greater the wealth of the country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We will probably not be any different.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:10
We are still a wealthy Nation and our currency is still trusted by the world. Yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined leaders. Yet they show little concern for our deficits. Rest assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:11
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed. Many dollars have been spent. Whether or not we are better off is another question.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:12
Today, we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:13
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver’s licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:14
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airports. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:15
Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty. Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It is frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:16
We do not understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:17
We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and even humiliation at our Nation’s airports.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:18
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It is no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:19
All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our securities. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in our foreign policy that incites those who declare war against us, no amount of patdowns at airports will suffice.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:20
Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs and the loss of liberty if in the next 20 years airplanes are never again employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA’s bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer. TSA cannot protect us from another attack, and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us more obedient and complacent toward government intrusion in our lives.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:21
The airplane mess has been compounded by other problems which we fail to recognize. Most assume that government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent on the government.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:22
After 9/11, we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and political takeover of the TSA, which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:23
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fueled the Transportation Secretary’s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discriminating against young Muslim males. Instead, TSA seemingly targeted white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying antidiscrimination laws.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:25
Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms, long denied this right, should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:26
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from the airlines are used to force sensitivity training on pilots, who do their very best under the circumstances to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:27
We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished, and costs skyrocket.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:28
Mr. Speaker, if we are willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:29
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation-building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:30
What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction? What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:31
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:32
What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in that region?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:33
What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9 percent of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:34
What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:35
What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim; and what is an acceptable price for doing good?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:36
What if Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a defense secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:37
What if we discover that when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic law over Western secular law and want our troops removed?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:38
What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:39
What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:40
What if it turns out radical Muslims do not hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:41
What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden? What if we discover that democracy cannot be spread with force of arms?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:42
What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:43
What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of an Arab-Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:44
What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:45
What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:46
What if the argument that by fighting over there we will not have to fight here is wrong, and the opposite is true?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:47
What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:48
What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, and justified by current U.S. policy?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:49
What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:50
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:51
What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and preemptive war against them?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:52
What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret; an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:53
What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:54
What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:55
What if we discover the Army is too small to continue policies of preemption and nation-building?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:56
What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:57
What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:58
What if the Pentagon’s legal task force opinion that the President is not bound by international or Federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:59
What if the intelligence reform legislation which gives us a bigger, more expensive bureaucracy does not bolster our security, distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:60
What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors and we are losing an unwinnable guerilla war? What if we discover too late that we cannot afford this war, and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:61
Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide for national security. And national security has been severely undermined.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:62
On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:63
Tragically, on 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin and London than it was to protect Washington, D.C. and New York City. Moreover, our ill advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:64
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan, our trusted ally that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves both with bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it is safe to say we have used billions of U.S. dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly and very dangerous foreign policy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:65
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation-building and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us, while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected, result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self-interest.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:66
I can hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to my concerns. But if I am completely wrong in my criticism, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:67
But the bigger question is, what if I am right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 6:68
For that, a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
National ID

!DATE:
26 January 2005

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise also in support of the Sessions amendment. But I also would like to take this time to make a few comments about why I will be voting against the bill.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:3
With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident that this bill, if you vote for it, you will be voting for a national ID card. I know some will argue against that and they say this is voluntary, but it really cannot be voluntary. If a State opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver’s license. So this is not voluntary.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:4
As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said “the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:5
This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the confirmation of the notion that we will be carrying our papers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:6
As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our papers and showing our papers, because in this bill there are no limitations as to the information that may be placed on this identification card. There are minimum standards, but no maximum limitations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:7
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything it wants. So if they would like to put on our driver’s license that you belong to a pro-gun group, it may well become mandatory, because there may be an administration some day that might like to have that information.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:8
But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no limitation as far as radio frequency identification. That technology is already available and being used on our passports. This means that you do not have to show your papers. All you have to do is walk by somebody that has a radio frequency ability to read your passport or read your driver’s license. There is no limitation as to what they can put on these documents.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:9
This bill also allows the definition of “terrorism” to be re-defined. There are no limitations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:10
In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it is sort of like the gun issue. Conservatives always know that you do not register guns, that is just terrible, because the criminals will not register their guns. But what are we doing with this bill? We are registering all the American people, and your goal is to register the criminals and the thugs and the terrorists.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:11
Well, why does a terrorist need a driver’s license? They can just steal a car or steal an airplane or steal a bus or whatever they want to do. So you are registering all the American people because you are looking for a terrorist, and all the terrorist is going to do is avoid the law. But we all, the American people, will have to obey the law. If we do not, we go to prison.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 7:12
So I rise in strong objection to this bill. I hope there will be a few that will oppose H.R. 418.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Motion To Adjourn

!DATE:
26 January 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Family Education Freedom Act

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle- class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes its goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:4
According to a June 2001 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, and African- Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:8
Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According to a Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:10
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:11
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 9:12
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:5
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat- tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Make College Affordable Act

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Make College Affordable Act of 2005. This legislation helps millions of Americans afford college by making college tuition tax deductible. Today the average cost of education at a state university is $9,802 per year, and the cost of education at a private university is $31,052 per year! These high costs have left many middle class American families struggling to afford college for their children, who are often ineligible for financial aid. Therefore, middle class students have no choice but to obtain student loans, and thus leave college saddled with massive debt.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 11:2
Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children’s education may have a difficult time because their savings are eroded by taxation and inflation. The Make College Affordable Act will help these middle class students by allowing them, or their parents or guardians who claim them as dependents, to deduct the cost of college tuition as well as the cost of student loan repayments.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 11:3
The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or nontraditional students looking to improve their job skills or prepare for a career change, by pursuing higher education. In today’s economy, the average American worker can expect to change jobs, and even careers, several times during his or her working life, making it more important than ever that working Americans be able to devote their resources to continuing their educations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 11:4
Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every qualified American can receive a college education is one of the best investments this Congress can make in the future. I therefore urge my colleagues to help strengthen America by ensuring more Americans can obtain college educations by cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Hope Plus Scholarship Act

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which expands the Hope Education Scholarship credit to cover K–12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the Hope Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents send their child to a private school, while other patents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their children’s local public school.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 12:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources — away from classroom instruction.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 12:3
The only way to reform America’s education system is through restoring control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools provide their children a quality education. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to help improve education by returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring the Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Teacher Tax Cut And The Professional Educators Tax relief Act

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are underappreciated and under- paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 13:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators’ pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators’ take-home pay by reducing educators’ taxes.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 13:3
This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K–12 academic program.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 13:4
The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America’s professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 13:5
I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation’s teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act

!DATE:
26 January 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately- funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly- funded vouchers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 14:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, “who should control the education dollar — politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?” Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act

!DATE:
2 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act. This act protects seniors’ fundamental right to make their own health care decisions by repealing federal laws that interfere with seniors’ ability to form private contracts for medical services. This bill also repeals laws which force seniors into the Medicare program against their will. When Medicare was first established, seniors were promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior’s right to seek out other forms of medical insurance. However, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 prohibits any physician who forms a private contract with a senior from filing any Medicare reimbursement claims for two years. As a practical matter, this means that seniors cannot form private contracts for health care services.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 15:2
Seniors may wish to use their own resources to pay for procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainty that comes when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Center from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 15:3
Seniors’ right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration’s refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling for Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program!


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 15:4
At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits or to use his own resources to obtain health care.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 15:5
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba

!DATE:
2 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful and counterproductive United States Embargo on Cuba.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:2
On June 29, 2001, the Texas State legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated: “We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar Federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin; so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:3
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:4
Second, sanctions hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Sanctions destroy American jobs. Every market we close to our Nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:5
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 16:6
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Ayn Rand’s Birthday

!DATE:
2 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ayn Rand, these comments. Ayn Rand has long inspired advocates of personal liberty and economic freedom. These ideals of individual responsibility and limited constitutional government are urgently needed in our Nation today.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 17:2
AYN RAND CENTENARY CELEBRATION
(By Don Ernsberger)
February 2nd marks the 100th Anniversary of the birth of philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand. The Russian born author of Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead and a number of nonfiction works in economics and ethics became, in the twentieth century, a major influence on the intellectual culture of the United States. Her most famous work, Atlas Shrugged remains ranked by the Library of Congress Center for the Book as the second most influential books ever published.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 17:3
Ayn Rand was a champion of capitalism and of individual liberty. She had experienced the impact of communism in her native Russia and was an outspoken opponent of both communism and of socialism. She advocated personal responsibility and an objective code of moral behavior. Ayn Rand’s fictional and non-fictional works promoted the ideal of the self-reliant individual who values reason, production and self-esteem in their personal lives and rejects the enslavement of others to advance one’s own personal goals. A proud immigrant, who chose America, she perceptively grasped the nature of our Constitution: “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals . . . it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of government . . . it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 17:4
Today, February 2, 2005, we celebrate the birth of this influential philosopher and writer who inspired and continues to inspire so many individuals to live rationally, and respect the rights of others. So much of what has made American a great society is found in her writings.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act

!DATE:
2 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. 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 also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by Federal regulation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:2
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. While Congress did add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in the last Congress, many seniors still have difficulty affording the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. One reason is because the new program creates a “doughnut hole,” where seniors lose coverage once their prescription expenses reach a certain amount and must pay for their prescriptions above a certain amount out of their own pockets until their expenses reach a level where Medicare coverage resumes. This tax credit will help seniors cover the expenses provided by the doughnut hole. This bill will also help seniors obtain prescription medicines that may not be covered by the new Medicare prescription drug program.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:3
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 United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the Federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State-licensed pharmacists.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:6
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 that sell pharmaceuticals. Any Federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 18:7
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 Prescription Drug Affordability Act.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
February 9, 2005

!TITLE:
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform




!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:2
What is wrong with this bill?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:3
The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:4
Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:5
Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:6
This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:7
This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:8
This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:9
There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:10
What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:11
H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are “deportable.” But it does nothing to mandate deportation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:12
Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:13
H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 19:14
I urge my colleagues to vote “NO” on the REAL ID Act of 2005.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty

!DATE:
10 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 10, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”).


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:2
The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in the early 1970s by the “New International Economic Order,” a United Nations political movement designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrial nations to communist and undeveloped nations. President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat this treaty would pose to America’s sovereignty and economic interests and rightly rejected the Treaty in 1982.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:3
Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate “Agreement” that purported to amend the Treaty. This “corrected treaty” was also deemed unacceptable by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994. Now we are once again facing a terribly flawed treaty that will hand over more of our sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations — just at a time when the extent of the United Nations’ corruption is becoming more evident through the oil for food scandal in Iraq.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:4
What is specifically wrong with the Law of the Sea Treaty?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:5
The Law of the Sea Treaty will deem the oceans of the Earth as the “Common Heritage of Mankind.” The Treaty dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind. The effect of this will be U.N. control over the world’s seabeds — a full 70 percent of the earth’s surface.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:6
The Law of the Sea Treaty will also create, for the first time in history, an international body with the authority to collect taxes from American citizens. It is truly a U.N. global tax. This will come about as a fee on private enterprise and nation states from seabed mining, offshore oil platforms, and other raw material recovery activities. These fees will first be paid by the governments of the signatory states, which will then have the burden of collecting the monies back from the private enterprises engaged in seabed mining activities.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:7
This treaty will create a Law of the Sea Tribunal, which will claim — and already has claimed — jurisdiction over the onshore as well as within the territorial sea or economic zones of coastal nations. This U.N. Tribunal could very well rule in a manner contrary to U.S. military, counterterrorism, and commercial interests.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 20:8
Mr. Speaker, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example of “taxation without representation” that our Founding Fathers rebelled against. We should under no circumstances surrender one bit of American sovereignty or treasure to the United Nations or any other global body. I hope my colleagues will join me by co-sponsoring this Sense of the Congress legislation and defeating this destructive treaty.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act

!DATE:
10 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 10, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 21:2
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 21:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 21:5
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these two bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, we can restore respect for freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Regulating The Airwaves

!DATE:
16 February 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lewd, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People’s Republic of China. Instead, the people’s airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:5
Congress should reject H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate Federal standards, H.R. 310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power. H.R. 310 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 310 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is “obscene” or “indecent.” While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is “hate speech.” Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include hate speech. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 310 also hold views that would likely be classified as “indecent hate speech.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:9
The Nation’s leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a Federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:10
If the government is going to “censor” what they think is right and wrong. . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys . . . start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:11
I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for the government to do it.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:12
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 310 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick “Desperate Housewives” off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:13
H.R. 310 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters’ profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes “risk adverse,” that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS’s quick attempt at “damage control” after the last year’s Super Bowl. Shortly before the 2004 Super Bowl, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie “The Reagans,” which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:14
Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from “indecent” broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people’s morals; it can only reduce liberty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:15
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:17
These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 22:18
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the first amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act

!DATE:
16 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 16, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. A little-noticed part of the administration’s immigration “reform” proposal would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal, so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: the federal government may actually actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration. How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:6
Estimates of what this latest totalization proposal would cost top $1 billion per year. Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are planning to enact a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program. As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund while policy makers seriously consider cutting Social Security benefits to American seniors and raising payroll taxes on American workers, it makes no sense to expand Social Security into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:7
It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security Trust Fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 23:8
Original Cosponsors of the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act: ROSCOE BARTLETT (MD–06), JOHN DUNCAN (TN–02), SCOTT GARRETT (NJ–05), VIRGIL GOODE (VA–03), THADDEUS MCCOTTER (MI–11), ZACH WAMP (TN–03).

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri

!DATE:
16 February 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 16, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of Mr. Hariri, the families of others killed in the attack that took Mr. Hariri’s life, and the people of Lebanon. While I support this legislation expressing sorrow over the murders, I do have some concerns that H. Res. 91 is being waved as a red flag to call for more U.S. intervention in the Middle East.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 24:2
It is unfortunate that tragic occurrences like these are all too often used by those who wish to push a particular foreign policy. We don’t really know who killed Mr. Hariri. Maybe an agent of the Syrian government killed him. Then again any of several other governments or groups in the Middle East or even beyond could be responsible. But already we are hearing from those who want to use this murder to justify tightening sanctions against Syria, forcing Syrian troops to leave Lebanon immediately, or even imposing U.S. military intervention against Syria. Just yesterday we heard that the U.S. ambassador to Syria has been withdrawn.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 24:3
The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon’s tragic recent history, and its slow return from the chaos of the civil war — a revival in which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role. We should remember, however, that it was the Lebanese government itself that requested assistance from Syria in 1976, to help keep order in the face of a civil war where Maronite Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze. This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So, while foreign occupation of any country against that country’s will is to be condemned, it is not entirely clear that this is the case with Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. What most won’t say here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Who is to say that this is not the best approach to avoid a return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced that we must immediately blame Syria for this attack and we must “do something” to avenge something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 24:4
So, while I do wish to express my sympathy over the tragic death of Rafik Hariri, I hope that my colleagues would refrain from using this tragedy to push policies of more U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee

!DATE:
1 March 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 1, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prohibit any remittance of U.S. voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 25:2
The United Nations has for decades been looking for a way to develop and promote a system of direct taxation on American citizens. It is bad enough that the United States has wasted more than $30 billion thus far on this corrupt and inept organization. U.N. bureaucrats want to find a way to put their hands directly in the taxpayer’s pocket and do away with the U.S. Government middle man.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 25:3
A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority” created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to — for the first time in history — impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and U.N. taxation of Americans will become a reality.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 25:4
This is just one of many examples of the United Nations attempting to impose direct taxes on the American people. If we are to retain our sovereignty and our way of life we must reject completely any such attempt. Our forefathers rebelled against English rule over the issue of “taxation without representation is tyranny.” It makes no sense at all more than 230 years later to subject ourselves to such a tyrannical arrangement.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 25:5
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Continuity In Representation Act

!DATE:
3 March 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 841 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed, H.R. 841 thus protects the people’s right to choose their Representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:2
Article I section 2 of the United States Constitution grants State governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place and manner of such special elections if States should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over Federal elections as shared between the States and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirety. H.R. 841 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or Acting Speaker declares 100 Members of the House have been killed.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:3
I have no doubt that the people of the States are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each State’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 841 before Congress today was drafted with input from State elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 841 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed Members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed Members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:4
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the Federal Government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:5
As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:7
Supporters of amending the Constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed Representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” Representatives will be permanent.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:8
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for Members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:9
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 26:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 841 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005

!DATE:
8 March 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 8, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re- introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and if anything, conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, from the Oil for Food Scandal to several recent particularly appalling sex scandals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:2
The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on the United Nations and has received in return only contempt from an organization that scoffs at traditional notions of limited government and sovereignty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:3
Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion’s share of the UN budget, UN bureaucrats are still not satisfied. They want direct access to U.S. taxpayer money with out the U.S. government middleman. A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority” created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to — for the first time in history — impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and UN taxation of Americans will become a reality.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:4
This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:5
The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:6
The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. President, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first President, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I hope for its quick consideration.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:7
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter” as a “constituent treaty,” leading international political authorities state that — “[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares “that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.” The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is “similar . . . to national constitutional law,” proclaiming that “because of its status as a constitution for the world community,” the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for “implied powers” to carry out the United Nations’ “comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.” Id. at 27


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this “constitutional interpretive” approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced “back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,” a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:12
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1–10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978). As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:13
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent “constitution for the universal society,” and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people “and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with “We the People of the United States” and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with “We the peoples of the United Nations.” But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification “by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two- thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called “for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter” and any changes proposed by the conference may “take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment “shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,” even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Legislatures have no power to ratify” a plan changing the form of government, only “the people” have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the “peoples” of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:22
By invoking the name of the “peoples of the United Nations,” then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over “human rights and fundamental freedoms” simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: “to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 27:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
March 14, 2005

!TITLE:
Reject the Latest Foreign Welfare Scheme



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We have absolutely no constitutional authority to establish a commission to “assist” parliaments throughout the world. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric surrounding this legislation, we should not fool ourselves. This is nothing more than yet another scheme to funnel United States tax dollars to foreign governments. It is an international welfare scheme and an open door to more U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 28:2
How can we tell an American family struggling to pay its bills that it must pay more taxes so a foreign parliament can purchase fancy plasma screen televisions, or the latest computer equipment, or ultra-modern communications equipment? Can anyone here justify this?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 28:3
Mr. Speaker, this bill will do more than just take money from Americans. This commission will enable members of Congress and congressional staff employees to travel the world meddling in the affairs of foreign governing bodies. It is counterproductive to tell other nations how they should govern themselves, as even if we come loaded with dollars to hand out, our meddling is always resented by the local population -- just as we would resent a foreign government telling us how to govern ourselves. Don’t we have enough of our own problems to solve without going abroad in search of foreign parliaments to aid?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 28:4
I urge my colleagues to reject this wasteful and counterproductive scheme.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
“Emergency” Supplemental Spending Bill

!DATE:
16 March 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this $82 billion “emergency” supplemental bill. I also am opposed to the manner in which the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418, was attached to the Rule, thereby stealthily making the establishment of a national ID part of an “emergency” bill to which it is completely unrelated. Once again we see controversial bills being hidden inside another bill so that they are automatically passed where they otherwise might face opposition. I do not believe this is a wise practice.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:2
This “emergency” supplemental is the second largest supplemental appropriations bill in United States history, second only to the one last year. The funds will be considered “emergency” funds so Congress can ignore spending caps that would require the billions in new spending to be offset by reducing spending elsewhere.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:3
We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore must not question this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency require sending billions of American taxpayers’ dollars overseas as foreign aid an emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid spending. If we pass this ill-conceived legislation, we will spend $656 million for tsunami relief; $94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million for food aid, most to Liberia and Sudan; $580 million for “peacekeeping” overseas; $582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq; $76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait (one of the wealthiest countries on earth); $257 million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan; $372 million for health, reconstruction, and alternative development programs to help farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in economic aid for the Palestinians; $150 million for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator); $200 million for Jordan; $34 million for Ukraine.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:4
Does anyone really believe that all this foreign aid is “emergency” spending? Or is it just an opportunity for some off-budget spending? Just the above foreign aid equals almost $3.5 billion. Does anyone believe that sending this much money abroad as international welfare is a good thing for our economy?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:5
Is there a baseball emergency? There must be, because this “emergency” supplemental contains a provision to allow Washington, D.C. to use taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 29:6
Mr. Chairman, this bill is almost unimaginably expensive. It is our out-of-control spending that really is the greatest threat to the United States and our way of life. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1

!DATE:
16 March 2005

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution not so much to object to the well- intended notions of the gentlewoman and the promotion of freedom and liberty. It is just that I do not think this is going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when we pursue resolutions like this and a more aggressive foreign policy of telling other countries what to do, I see it as more of a threat to our security rather than helping our security.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:2
I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended consequences. There seems to be a condition called “blow-back,” where it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:3
For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is the worst, and that city is not Beirut.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:4
In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like them to be.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:5
The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:6
We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never saw a sign that said, America, come save us, come in here, tell us what to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been avoiding them.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:7
We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:8
So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at us and say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful elections, and they have got to get these troops out; and at the same time we have troops all over the place.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:9
The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many times since then over the world.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:10
Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:11
In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:12
It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how well the intentions are, we should look at the conclusions; what finally happens.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:13
Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic principle that we should follow, and that is that we should be friends with nations and trade with nations, and that we should be neutral in foreign affairs, because it does not serve our interests. It costs a lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility and it costs a lot of lives.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:14
Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:15
It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up their arms and demand an end to the senseless war.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:16
But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and frustrated with the loss of life, there are economic limitations to this as well, and that is something that I do not think anybody here hardly pays any attention to; that is how long can we continue to spend this money and not have this come back to really haunt us economically? The 1960s came back to haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial condition of this country is much worse than it was in the 1970s. Yet there is no hesitation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:17
I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, and think almost what is in our best interests? I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his memoirs several years later.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:18
“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry into paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:19
Further quoting Ronald Reagan, “In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave . . . yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policies there.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:20
He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest that I believe that is pretty good advice.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 30:21
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2

!DATE:
16 March 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the unintended consequences of our foreign policy, as well as what might happen in Lebanon.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:3
It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the administration that when there is outside interference the elections are unreliable.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:4
Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:5
Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place without external forces, and all the troops must be out. The UN resolution calls for the troops out as well as the security forces, but the resolution also calls for disarming the people of Lebanon.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:6
In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:7
We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:8
It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed Hariri.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:9
But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:10
Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that could have a great deal of significance, and that is that the radicals end up taking over, some individuals more radical than Assad, end up taking over Syria, which is always the possibility. But too often these unintended consequences occur and then we do not know how to respond to them.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:11
In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important to anybody?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:12
Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well-intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling the wool over our eyes.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:13
John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: “America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:14
That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:15
Jefferson’s suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none. And we have way too many entangling alliances, making these huge commitments which will come to an end not because anybody is going to pay much attention to what I say, but they will come to an end because this country is on the verge of bankruptcy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:16
We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year and pretend that we can police the world and at the same time increase entitlements here at home. So one day we will have to face up to these realities, and it will all come to an end.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 31:17
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 3

!DATE:
16 March 2005


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 32:2
Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese detainees in Syria and Lebanon.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 32:3
Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who they can release and who they should release. But the question I have, and maybe the sponsors of the resolution could answer this: Will that include that we insist that they release the prisoners that we have sent to Syria?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 32:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
The Deficit

!DATE:
16 March 2005

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a fellow member of the Joint Economic Committee.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:2
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to talk about the budget. In listening to the debate today on both sides of the aisle, there has been a lot of expression of concern about the deficit; and, of course, I am very concerned about the deficit as well.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:3
But I would like to make a suggestion that we are not facing primarily a budgetary crisis or a budgetary problem. I see this more as a philosophic problem, dealing more with the philosophy of government rather than thinking that we can tinker with the budget, dealing with this as a tactical problem when really it is a strategic problem. So as long as we endorse the type of government that we have and there is a willingness for the people as well the Congress to finance it, we are going to continue with this process and the frustrations are going to grow because it is just not likely that these deficits will shrink.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:4
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania rightly pointed out the concerns this might have in the financial markets. I am hoping that his optimism pans out because, indeed, if they do not, there could be some ramifications from these expanding deficits and what it means to our dollar.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:5
But I would like to suggest that in dealing with the budget itself, I see only one problem that we have. And that problem to me is the budget is too big, and I would like to shrink the budget. I have toyed with the idea over the years to introduce and offer a constitutional budget to the House floor. That would not be too difficult because the budget would be so much smaller. It would mean essentially that if one is a strict constitutionalist that they would cut the budget approximately 80 percent.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:6
What would that mean to the economy? It would be a boost because we would be injecting $2 trillion back into the economy, allowing the people to spend their own money. But being pretty realistic, I know that is not likely to happen or be offered or even be able to present that on the House floor. Besides, it could be rather embarrassing to bring something like that to the floor. Not so much embarrassing to me, because I am accustomed to voting in a small group of people on many occasions; but it could be embarrassing to others because, for the most part, most Members would not even conceive of the idea of having a strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limiting the budget. So we would not want to put everybody on record for that.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:7
The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he was asked about a particular program about where the authority came from in the Constitution for that program. And his answer was very straightforward; and he explained that in the Constitution there was no prohibition against that program, so therefore it was permitted. In his mind, as it is in the minds of many Members of Congress, if there is no strict prohibition, it is permitted.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:8
And that is just absolutely opposite of what was intended by the authors of the Constitution that we would only be able to do those things which are explicitly permitted in the Congress, and they are spelled out rather clearly in article I, section 8.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:9
And then we are given the permission to write the laws that are necessary and proper to implement those powers that are delegated to us. Those powers that are not delegated are reserved to the States and to the people. So it means that those things that are not prohibited are permitted, but I would say that the conventional wisdom today is that people accept the notion that we can do anything that we want as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:10
I think this improper understanding and following of the Constitution has brought us closer to a major crisis in this country, a crisis of our personal liberties, a crisis in our foreign policy, as well as a crisis in our budgeting.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:11
But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is our problem. I think our other problem is our country and our people and our Congresses and our Senators have accepted the notion of faith in government, faith in the State, that the State can provide these great services and do it efficiently.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:12
Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called “War is the Health of the State,” and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all government should be: the preservation of liberty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:13
We have endorsed a program with this interpretation that spending is going to be endlessly increased, and we have devised a system whereby we have ignored the constraints through monetary policy by not only are we taxing too much and borrowing too much; we have now since 1971 endorsed a monetary system that if we come up short we just print the money. And I would suggest to the gentlewoman that one of the reasons why the workers’ purchasing power is going down is we print too many dollars and they are the ones who are most likely and first to suffer from inflation.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:14
And it is the philosophy of government and our philosophy on money that encourages these problems. And the current account deficits and this huge foreign indebtedness that are encouraged by our ability to maintain a reserve currency, it is going to lead to a crisis where this spending will have to come in check.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 33:15
And that is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite correct that we should be concerned about how the financial markets look at what we do. And hopefully we will be able to deal with this in a budgetary way and institute some restraints. But quite frankly I am a bit pessimistic about that. This program that we follow and this philosophy we followed prompted our Federal Reserve to create $620 billion in order to finance the system. That is the reason that the dollar becomes less valuable, because we just print too many to accommodate the politicians and the people who enjoy the excessive spending.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 34
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
April 6, 2005

!TITLE:
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:1
Clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri Schiavo.   Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has emerged.   This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract.   It’s about an individual’s right to life and the value of life itself.   Without concern for the life of each individual, liberty is meaningless and indefensible.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:2
This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill.   This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship.   The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:3
Terri Schiavo is a unique case, and unfortunately her fate ended up in the hands of lawyers, judges, and the legislators.   The media certainly did their part in disrupting her final days.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:4
In a free society the doctor and the patient-- or his or her designated spokesperson-- make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues.   The government stays out of it.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:5
This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important.   It is not an esoteric subject; it’s a real life involved and a personal issue we can’t ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with government now responsible for most of the medical bills.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:6
We’re rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized health care.   As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions.   This has occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing.   The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:7
Free-market medicine is not perfect, but it’s the best system to sort out these difficult problems-- and it did so for years.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:8
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination.   It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate.   In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement.   I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues.   I won’t hold my breath.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion?   These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage.   There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts.   Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:11
It’s too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members.   But perhaps this “flexibility” in administering the rule of law helps create problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:12
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution.   They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:13
First, all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing to use lethal force to satisfy the politicians’ notion of an unachievable fair society.   Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how well intentioned, can never be justified.   It’s theft, plain and simple, and morally wrong.   Actually, welfare is anti-prosperity; so it can’t be pro-life.   Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that someone believes will result from the transfer program.   They never ask who must pay, who must be threatened, who must be arrested and imprisoned.   They never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible taxation could have helped someone in a private or voluntary way.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:14
Practically speaking, welfare rarely works.   The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty.   Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty.   Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and more often than not does exactly the opposite.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:15
My suggestion to my colleagues, who did argue convincingly that Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case, is please consider using these same arguments consistently and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes increases in welfare one is not pro-life.   Being pro-liberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being pro-life, as well as pro-prosperity.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:16
Conservatives on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life.   There’s little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda even when it’s not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so.   Take for instance the funding of faith-based charities.   The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more federal laws and increasing spending.   Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at the state level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not be the prerogative of the federal government.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:17
The biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.   While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:18
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri.   It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same.   However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability.   Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:19
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise.   Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years.   But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government-- only the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor.   No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:20
A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort.   Today there is little respect for life-- witness the number of abortions performed each year.   There is little respect for liberty-- witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move.   There is little respect for peace-- witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others.   Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:21
The accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer generation is treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of life concerns, we’re talking about $7 trillion in additional medical costs.   Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions will vanish.   National health care, of necessity, will always conflict with personal choices.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:22
Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government ordered euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs.   This is true whether it’s a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an emergency room visit for a broken toe.   And in addition deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a paper money system.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:23
Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.   When dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of debating what was best for Terri.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 34:24
Hopefully, this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 35
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
April 6, 2005

!TITLE:
Who’s Better Off?



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:1
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is:   “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?”   The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed.   The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.”   But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate.   Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate?   Do the ends justify the means?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:2
The information Congress was given prior to the war was false.   There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills.   Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion.   After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.   Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.”   It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops.   In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:3
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change.   In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.   The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power.   The real question ought to be:   “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?”   Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:4
How much better off are the Iraqi people?   Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed.   Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities.   One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off.   Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.  


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:5
Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war.   Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon.   Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:6
Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom.   In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:7
One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming.   This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen.   Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:8
Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory.   The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured.   Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:9
We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war.   Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil.   Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:10
Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time.   Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:11
The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq.   Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds.   The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:12
The whole process is corrupt.   It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war.   First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it.   Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States.   Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:13
One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this:   “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?”   The answer is plainly no.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:14
Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion.   Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country.   Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe.   Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria.   It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq.   Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians.   In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:15
Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein.   Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:16
But there’s another question that is equally important:   “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:17
One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off.   The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off.   The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:18
The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off.   They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:19
The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.   The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:20
Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off?   I’d say no.   Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever.   The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever.   This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion.   Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated.   Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule.   So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:21
Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that.   I wonder who benefits from this?


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:22
Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country.   Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:23
The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services.   Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops.   Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:24
The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt.   If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:25
One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty.   Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory.   The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for.   It makes no sense.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:26
This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism.   Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit.   Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:27
These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:28
We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable.   Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress.   Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:29
A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:30
We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:31
We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great.   We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world.    Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:32
In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies.   The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 35:33
Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country.   If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state.   There’s no need for that.   It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 36
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
April 6, 2005

!TITLE:
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 36:2
The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 36:3
Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 36:4
Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 36:5
In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Tribute To Dr. Andrew Messenger, A True Friend Of Liberty

!DATE:
6 April 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 6, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and patriot, Dr. Andrew L. Messenger, of Riverdale, Michigan.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:2
As a physician, I know Dr. Messenger is the type of doctor all of us would want to have to take care of us. He is capable, loves his work, genuinely cares about his patients, and is always available if someone needs him. In fact, he loves being a doctor so much that he did not retire until this past year at age 83.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:3
Every day he would wake up early to be at the office by 6:45 a.m. He knew that many of his working patients preferred to come in early so he made himself available. Dr. Messenger felt that if he as a doctor was unavailable, he was worthless.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:4
Dr. Messenger also applied this principle to being a father. Leaving the house early in the morning allowed him to spend time with his family in the evenings. Most nights and weekends were spent hunting, fishing, playing at the local playground, and attending athletic events with his six children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:5
When Dr. Messenger returned home from work, the whole family would sit around the dinner table and discuss personal and newsworthy events of the day. After dinner was done and homework finished, Dr. Messenger would take the kids out to play. Baseball and going to the park were two of the Messenger family’s favorite after dinner activities.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:6
His personal involvement in the lives of his children paid off. He has six successful children, three of whom are doctors.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:7
Dr. Messenger lives by the principals of honesty, hard work, and caring for his fellow man, and took great care to instill these same principles into his children.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:8
After raising a family and running a respected practice, Dr. Messenger continues to make a difference not only in his local community and across the United States through his generous support of the Leadership Institute.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:9
When most men embrace the rewards retirement offers, Dr. Messenger pushes on to make a difference in the lives of his countrymen. Dr. Messenger’s support of the Leadership Institute gives young people and working professionals the practical tools necessary to advance liberty and protect freedom. Too often freedom has few friends on our college campuses, in our state houses, and in our capitol. Dr. Messenger is providing everyday citizens with the resources necessary to defend the dream of limited government George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers created when they wrote our constitution.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:10
Clearly, Dr. Messenger has not only contributed to society by raising six successful children, he has made provisions for future generations through investing in the long-term mission of the Leadership Institute.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 37:11
Thank you, Dr. Messenger, for investing in the lives of the future leaders of this country through your faithful and generous support of the Leadership Institute.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]


!TITLE:
Humanitarian Food And Medicine Export Act

!DATE:
6 April 2005

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 6, 2005



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will remove current, and prohibit future, embargoes on the export of food, medicine, or medical devices. Embargoes on these items, as we have seen time and time again, do not have the desired policy effect on the targeted country. In fact, they only punish the innocent and most vulnerable people in these countries. Does anyone believe that denying the people of a foreign country food or medicine because of our quarrel with their leader will make them more sympathetic toward the United States? We are fond of talking about “humanitarian” treatment in foreign countries. But it is our policy of embargoing the export of food and medicine to certain countries that is most un-humanitarian. We need to practice what we preach.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 38:2
Also, it is very important to remember the harm we do to our own citizens when we deny them the right to sell their products to whoever they like. It is not very humanitarian to deny our own citizens the right to their livelihood because our political leadership does not get along with the political leadership of another country.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 38:3
Mr. Speaker, we do ourselves no favors in denying our citizens the right to export the essentials for life to citizens abroad. And we do no real harm to leaders abroad, who actually benefit by our sanction policies, as they provide a convenient scapegoat for their own economic failures. The fact is that trade promotes peace. Forcibly cutting off trade relations with another country promotes militarism and conflict.


!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 38:4
I hope my colleagues will join me by co- sponsoring this legislation.

2005 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


!DATE:
April 14, 2005

!TITLE:
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!



!CITE:
2005 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.   Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed into law in the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, by a Congress more concerned with doing something than doing the right thing.   Today, American businesses, workers, and investors are suffering because Congress was so eager to appear “tough on corporate crime.” Sarbanes-Oxley imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry. These regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges. According to a study by the prestigious Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges n