U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | trade |
trade
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Millennium Bug
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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?”
trade
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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?
trade
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.”
trade
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.”
trade
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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:
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Iraq — Part 2
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Consequences Of Gun Control
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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!
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.”
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.)
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.:
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:16
For these reasons and others, I oppose the so-called free-trade-enhancing Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
trade
On The United Nations And Embassy Security
19 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.)
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Foreign Subsidies
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
Humanitarian Aid
28 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
No Neeed for Federal Animal Cruelty Laws
19 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 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.
trade
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 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.
trade
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 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.
trade
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 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.
trade
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 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.
trade
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 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.
trade
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 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.
trade
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.’
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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?
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.’
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.”
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 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.
trade
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.’
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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’.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 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.
trade
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000 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.
trade
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 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.
trade
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 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.
trade
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.”
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.”
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 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.
trade
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 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.
trade
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 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.
trade
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 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.
trade
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 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.
trade
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 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.
trade
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 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.
trade
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 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.
trade
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 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.
trade
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 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.
trade
H. Res 34
13 February 2001 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.
trade
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 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?
trade
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 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 . . . ?
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 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.
trade
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 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.
trade
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 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.
trade
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 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!
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.”
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.”
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:7
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001] FREE TRADE DOESN’T REQUIRE TREATIES (By Pierre Lemieux)
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 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.
trade
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 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.
trade
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 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.
trade
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 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.
trade
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001 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.
trade
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001 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.
trade
Not Isolationism
13 June 2001 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.
trade
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 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.
trade
Prosecuting Milosevic
18 July 2001 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.
trade
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 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.
trade
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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
trade
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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
trade
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.
trade
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 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.”
trade
Crazy For Kazakhstan
1 August 2001 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.
trade
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 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.
trade
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 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.
trade
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 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.
trade
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 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.
trade
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 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.
trade
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 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.
trade
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001 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).
trade
Safe Act
9 October 2001 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!
trade
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001 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.
trade
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 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.
trade
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 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.
trade
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 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!
trade
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 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.
trade
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 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.
trade
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 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.
trade
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001 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.
trade
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 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.
trade
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 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.
trade
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 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.
trade
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 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.
trade
Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce
4 December 2001 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.
trade
Ongoing Violence in Israel and Palestine
December 5, 2001 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 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.
trade
H.R. 3054
16 December 2001 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.
trade
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 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.”
trade
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 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.
trade
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 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.
trade
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 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.
trade
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 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!
trade
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 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].
trade
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 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.
trade
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 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.”
trade
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002 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.
trade
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 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.
trade
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 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?
trade
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 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!
trade
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 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.
trade
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 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.
trade
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 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!
trade
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 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.
trade
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 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.
trade
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 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.
trade
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 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!
trade
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 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.
trade
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 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.
trade
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 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.
trade
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 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.
trade
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 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.
trade
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 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.
trade
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 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!
trade
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002 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."
trade
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 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.
trade
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 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.
trade
Treasury And General Government Appropriations Act, 2003
23 July 2002 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.
trade
Treasury And General Government Appropriations Act, 2003
23 July 2002 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.
trade
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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?
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 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.
trade
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 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.
trade
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002 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.
trade
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 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.
trade
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 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.
trade
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 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.
trade
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 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.
trade
Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights
11 February 2003 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.
trade
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003 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.
trade
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003 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.
trade
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 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.
trade
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 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.
trade
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 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.
trade
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 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.
trade
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 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.
trade
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 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.
trade
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
10 June 2003 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.
trade
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 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.
trade
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 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.
trade
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 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.”.
trade
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 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.
trade
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 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.
trade
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 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.
trade
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 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.
trade
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 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.
trade
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 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.
trade
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 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.
trade
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 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.
trade
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 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.
trade
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 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.
trade
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
29 october 2003 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.
trade
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 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.
trade
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 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!
trade
Introducing The Belarus Freedom Act Of 2004
24 February 2004 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.
trade
Introducing The Belarus Freedom Act Of 2004
24 February 2004 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.
trade
Introducing The Belarus Freedom Act Of 2004
24 February 2004 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.
trade
North American Development Bank
24 March 2004 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.
trade
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 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.
trade
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 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.
trade
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 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.”
trade
Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace
23 June 2004 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?
trade
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 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.
trade
End Embargo On Cuba
7 July 2004 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.
trade
End Embargo On Cuba
7 July 2004 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.
trade
End Embargo On Cuba
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 49:6
We have trade with China. Things have gone better with China, not worse.
trade
End Embargo On Cuba
7 July 2004 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.
trade
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004 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.
trade
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 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.
trade
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 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.
trade
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 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.
trade
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 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.
trade
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 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.
trade
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 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.
trade
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005 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.
trade
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 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.
trade
Humanitarian Food And Medicine Export Act
6 April 2005 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.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our position to remove ourselves from the WTO. My economic position is somewhat different from some of my allies, because I come at it from a free trade position.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:3
I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe that the process of the WTO and world government is a good way to do it. I do not think the WTO achieves its purpose, and I do not think it is permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, I strongly argue the case that, through the process, that we should defend the position of the Congress which gives us the responsibility of dealing with international trade, with international foreign commerce. That is our responsibility. We cannot transfer that responsibility to the President, and we cannot transfer that responsibility to an international government body.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:5
Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those who believe in limited government are so anxious to deliver this to another giant international body. For instance, the WTO employs over 600 people. Free trade, if you are interested in free trade, all you have to do is write a sentence or two, and you can have free trade. You do not need 600 bureaucrats. It costs $133 million to manage the WTO every year. Of course, we pay the biggest sum, over $25 million for this, just to go and get permission or get our instructions from the WTO.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:7
One other issue that I think those who defend the WTO and call themselves free traders ought to recognize is that when we concede the fact that there should be a trade-off, it means they really do not believe in free trade. If you believe in free trade and the people have the right to spend their money the way they want, it would be as simple as that. It would benefit that country, because you could get your goods and services cheaper.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:8
But this whole concession to the management of trade through the WTO says, all right, we are going to do this if you do this, and it acknowledges the fact that free trade does not work unless you get something for it. That may be appealing to some, but a free trader should not argue that way. Because free trade, if it is a benefit, it is simply a benefit.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:9
In the 1990s when the WTO was originally passed, the former Speaker of the House made a statement about this. I want to quote from him. This is from Newt Gingrich. He was talking about the WTO: “I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would be honest about the scale of change. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it. I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.”
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:10
I agree with Newt Gingrich on this. It was a huge transfer of power. I happen to believe it was an unconstitutional transfer of power; and, therefore, we are now suffering the consequences because we have lost prerogatives and control of our own trade policy.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:11
Now the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a free market think tank, from Auburn, Alabma said, “The World Trade Organization is supposed to be the great apparatus to push the world to greater economic integration. In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection of the old central planning fallacy that the world needs a central authority to manage it. The WTO has ended up politicizing trade by putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policy.”
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:12
So my message is to appeal to those who believe in limited government, free markets, free trade and the Constitution. I appeal to those who want to use tariffs in a protective way because they defend the process. But I am really appealing to the conservatives who claim they believe in free trade, because I do not believe what we have here is truly free trade.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:13
The WTO has already been able to influence our tax laws. Not too long ago, Utah repealed a ban on electronic gambling for fear the WTO would come in and find that violated free trade.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:16
So this is big government, pure and simple. It does not endorse free trade whatsoever. It endorses managed trade; and too often it is managed for the privileges of the very large, well-positioned companies. It does not recognize the basic principle that we should defend as a free society individuals ought to have the right to spend their money the way they want. That is what free trade is, and you can do that unilaterally without pain and suffering.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:17
So I ask Members to consider, why should we not reclaim some of our prerogatives, our authorities, our responsibility? We have given up too much over the years. We have clearly given up our prerogatives on the declaration of war, and on monetary issues. That has been given away by the Congress. And here it is on the trade issue.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:18
I can remember an ad put out in the 1990s when the WTO was being promoted and they talked directly, it was a full page ad, I believe, in the New York Times. They said, “This is the third leg of the new world order.” We had the World Bank, we had the IMF, and now we had the World Trade Organization.
trade
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:19
So if you are a believer in big government and world government and you believe in giving up the prerogatives of the Congress and not assuming our responsibility, I would say, go with the WTO. But if you believe in freedom, if you believe in the Constitution and if you really believe in free trade, I would say we should vote to get out of the WTO.
trade
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:33
This ability to print the reserve currency of the world, and the willingness of foreigners to take it, causes gross distortions in our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness. It plays a major role in the erosion of our manufacturing base, and causes the exporting of our jobs along with our dollars. Bashing foreigners, in particularly the Chinese and the Japanese, as the cause of our dwindling manufacturing and job base is misplaced. It prevents the evaluation of our own policies-- policies that undermine and increase the price of our own manufacturing goods while distorting the trade balance. Though we continue to benefit from the current circumstances, through cheap imports on borrowed money, the shaky fundamentals make our economy and financial system vulnerable to sudden and severe adjustments. Foreigners will not finance our excessive standard of living and our expensive war overseas indefinitely. It will end! What we do in the meantime to prepare for that day will make all the difference in the world for the future of freedom in this country. It’s the future of freedom in this country that is truly the legitimate responsibility of us as Members of Congress.
trade
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:34
Centuries ago the notion of money introduced the world to trade and the principle of division of labor, ushering in for the first time a level of economic existence above mere subsistence. Modern fiat money with electronic transactions has given an additional boost to that prosperity. But unlike sound commodity money, fiat money, with easy credit and artificially low interest rates, causes distortions and mal-investments that require corrections. The modernization of electronic global transfers, which with sound money would be beneficial, has allowed for greater distortion and debt to be accumulated-- setting the stage for a much more serious period of adjustment requiring an economic downturn, liquidation of debt, and reallocation of resources that must come from savings rather than a central bank printing press.
trade
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:40
If we did make these changes, we would not need to become isolationists, despite what many claim. Isolationism is not the only alternative to intervention in other nations’ affairs. Freedom works! Free markets supported by sound money, private property, and respect for all voluntary contracts can set an example for the world-- since the resulting prosperity would be significant and distributed more widely than any socialist system. Instead of using force to make others do it our way, our influence could be through the example we set that would motivate others to emulate us. Trade, travel, exchange of ideas, and friendly relationships with all those who seek friendship are a far cry from a protectionist closed border nation that would serve no one’s interest.
trade
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:41
This type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide commodity standard of money. This would prevent the imbalances that are a great burden to today’s economy. Our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness would not occur under an honest non-political commodity money. Competitive devaluations and abnormally fixed exchanged rates would not be possible as tools of protectionism. We can be certain that the distortions in trade balance and the WTO trade wars that are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious challenge to worldwide trade. The tragedy of trade wars is that they frequently lead to military wars between nations, and until the wealth is consumed and young men are no longer available to fight and die the process will cost plenty.
trade
PATRIOT Act Violates Fourth Amendment
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 64:4
The trade-off is too great. We should never trade off safety and security for our liberties, and I think that is what we have done with the PATRIOT Act.
trade
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:5
Some have raised concerns that the purchase of Unocal by a company tied to the Chinese government will create security problems for the United States. I would argue the opposite. International trade and economic activity tends to diminish, not increase tensions between countries. Increased economic relationships between the United States and China make military conflict much less likely, as it becomes in neither country’s interest to allow tensions to get out of hand.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read ”Your dietary supplements: Under attack again“ by Henry Lamb, which I am inserting into the record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to American consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The United Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods and medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States government agreed to a final version of Codex’s standards on dietary supplements which, if implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans’ ability to obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American bureaucracy may be hoping to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve through the domestic law-making process--the power to restrict consumers’ access to dietary supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World Trade Organization, which considers Codex ”guidelines“ the standard by which all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to ”harmonize“ our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex’s recommendations violates international trading standards! This could occur despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to the restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the European Union.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:14
The effort to regulate dietary supplements has been under way for more than a decade. In 1994, Congress adopted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which kept supplements beyond the reach of the drug police. In the past, Codex recommendations have been non-binding. Now, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is teaming up with the World Trade Organization to bring international enforcement to the dietary-supplement battle.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:15
Ironically, it was primarily the U.S. that brought the WTO into existence in 1994, as the successor to GATT, the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade. The WTO agreement specifically requires that the member nations--including the U.S.--conform its laws to meet the requirements of WTO decisions. Failure to conform results in stiff financial penalties. The Codex Commission and the European Union want the WTO to enforce Codex standards, which fly directly in the face of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:16
Pascal Lamy of France was just selected as director general of the WTO. Lamy served as a member of the French Socialist Party’s steering committee and was chief of staff and representative of the European Commission for President Jacques Delors. Since 1995, he has served as a member of the Central Office of the Mouvement Européen (France) and as a member of the European Commission, responsible for trade.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:18
The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s reach is much broader than dietary supplements. Its committees are also working on standards for pesticide residue, labeling of all kinds of foods, food additives and nutrients, veterinary medicine and drugs, as well as standards and methods for analysis. The function of this organization is to establish standards for all food worldwide and to enforce those standards through the power of the World Trade Organization.
trade
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:19
Few people know that there is such a thing as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was created to promote food safety in international trade. It is on the brink of becoming an Orwellian bureaucracy--far worse than the worst fantasies of the one-world conspiracy theories.
trade
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn’t it ironic that the proponents of “free trade agreements” like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against “subsidized” sectors of the Chinese economy? In reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House Floor as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to “free trade” with Central America we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China.
trade
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 90:2
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese government. Take the demand that the government “revalue” its currency, for example. First, there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have very little effect on China’s trade surplus with the United States. As Barron’s magazine pointed out recently, “the Japanese yen’s value has more than tripled since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan’s trade surplus remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have any greater impact?”
trade
Congress, Not The President, Should Regulate Foreign Commerce
27 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 92:3
Members say it is not a threat to our national sovereignty and that we can veto what they tell us to do; but it does not happen that way. If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade.
trade
Congress, Not The President, Should Regulate Foreign Commerce
27 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 92:4
At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.
trade
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:5
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 removes 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.
trade
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:68
Though these problems are serious and threaten our freedoms and way of life, there’s every reason to work for the traditional constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not being tempted to mold the world in our image through force. We should not forget that what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam, was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military failure and withdrawal of our armed forces. Today, through trade and peace, U.S. investment and economic cooperation has westernized Vietnam far more than our military efforts.
trade
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:71
If confidence can be restored in our American traditions of peace and trade, our influence throughout the world would be enhanced just as it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam.
trade
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:6
Misguided and outdated trade policies are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson- Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson- Vanik’s threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Kazakhstan, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations.
trade
Introduction Of A Bill To Make Amendments To The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000 Related To International Space Station Payments
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 101:2
Currently, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 forbids any such purchase because Russia is said to be assisting Iran in pursuit of its atomic energy program. Mr. Speaker, this situation demonstrates very clearly the negative unintended consequences of our counterproductive policy of restricting trade and placing trade sanctions on other countries. It would be ironic if in our zeal to punish Russia for engaging in trade with Iran we in fact end up punishing scores of Americans who work in the space industry in the United States.
trade
Staying or Leaving
October 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 102:8
We should remember that losing a war to China over control of North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today outproduces us in many ways-- as reflected by our negative trade balance with her.
trade
Staying or Leaving
October 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 102:9
We lost a war in Vietnam, and the domino theory that communism would spread throughout southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.
trade
Staying or Leaving
October 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 102:10
We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military confrontation, leading to the collapse and disintegration of a powerful Soviet empire. Today we trade with Russia and her neighbors, as the market economy spreads throughout the world without the use of arms.
trade
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 107:3
Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing national debt, my legislation is financed through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign aid programs, which subsidize large corporations and even American businesses’ overseas competitors such as the Export-Import Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite trade with countries such as Communist China. It is time for the Federal Government to begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary programs that benefit powerful special interests in order to met our constitutional responsibilities to ensure America’s first responders can effectively respond to terrorists’ attacks.
trade
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
trade
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:13
Everyone is talking about the downside of us leaving, and the civil war that might erupt. Possibly so, but no one knows with certainty what will happen. There was no downside when we left Vietnam. But one thing for sure, after a painful decade of killing in the 1960s, the killing stopped and no more Americans died once we left. We now trade with Vietnam and enjoy friendly relations with them. This was achieved through peaceful means, not military force. The real question is how many more Americans must be sacrificed for a policy that is not working? Are we going to fight until we go broke and the American people are impoverished? Common sense tells us it’s time to reassess the politics of military intervention and not just look for someone to blame for falling once again into the trap of a military quagmire.
trade
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:47
A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.
trade
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:13
Everyone is talking about the downside of us leaving and the civil war that might erupt. Possibly so. But no one knows with certainty what will happen. There was no downside when we left Vietnam. But one thing for sure, after a painful decade of the 1960s, the killing stopped and no more Americans died once we left. We now trade with Vietnam and enjoy friendly relations with them. This was achieved through peaceful means, not military force.
trade
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:2
After all of this great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end. It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade be required in an exchange of something of real value. First, it was simply barter of goods, and then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions.
trade
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:34
Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super- nationalist sentiments, threat of force, and even war are resorted to, all to solve the problems artificially created by a deeply flawed monetary and economic system.
trade
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:35
In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case, that is the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates and graciously lend them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption and our wars.
trade
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:38
Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble, generated by easy money, has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and Federal spending is out of sight, with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It is bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979–1980, which required 21 percent interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.
trade
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:77
Under these circumstances, it is no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. Add this to the military industrial complex that developed over the decades due to a foreign policy of perpetual war and foreign military intervention, and we shouldn’t wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade and why former Members of Congress and their aides become such high- priced commodities.
trade
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:3
USA Today’s Editorial of March 1, “Patriot Act ‘compromise’ trades liberty for safety,” accurately describes how people concerned about individual liberty should react to S. 2271’s “reforms”: “Big Deal. By any standard of respect for the Bill of Rights, those provisions never should have been in the law in the first place. What is it about the Fourth Amendment (‘The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated’) that Congress doesn’t get?”
trade
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:7
Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion and occupied two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are poorer, but certainly not safer, for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ringleader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch- enemy, more than our own.
trade
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:68
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There is no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American nonmilitant noninterventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. It is time for a change.
trade
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:31
A soaring gold price is a vote of no confidence in the central bank and the dollar. This certainly was the case in 1979 and 1980. Today gold prices reflect a growing restlessness with the increasing money supply, our budgetary and trade deficits, our unfunded liabilities, and the inability of this Congress and the administration to rein in runaway spending.
trade
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:34
As problems develop, scapegoats are sought and frequently found in foreign nations. This prompts many to demand altering exchange rates and protectionist measures. The sentiment for this type of solution is growing each day. Though everyone decries inflation, trade imbalances, economic downturns and Federal deficits, few attempt a closer study of our monetary system and how these events are interconnected.
trade
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:11
But I am asking you to reconsider the fact that moving in this direction is the same thing as we did against Iraq, and it won’t do us any good. It is going to cost us a lot of money, and it is going to cost a lot of lives, and it is un-American. It is not constitutional. It is not moral. We should not pursue this type of foreign policy. We should take care of ourselves, and we should be more friendly with nations. We should be willing to trade. And if you are concerned about the world, why not set a good example? When our house is clean, when we have a good democracy and a worthy Republic, and we do well, believe me, they will want to emulate us.
trade
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:13
So I just plead with you to be more cautious. Negroponte says there is no rush. Take some time. They are not about to have a nuclear weapon. And whether or not that is their plan or not probably at this moment is irrelevant. I mean, if we stood down all these nations and all these nuclear weapons in the past, why can’t we practice more diplomacy to resolve our differences. I was talking to somebody the other day and they said, well, maybe in 10 years they might have a nuclear weapon, so we must act now. Get the bombs ready. They are talking about a nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. It is time to step back and look at the policy. The policy of nonintervention and peaceful relations with the world and peaceful trade is the American way to go, and it will lead to peace and prosperity.
trade
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:5
However, I would like to remind my colleagues that, since earmark reform does not reduce the total amount of spending, instead giving more power to the executive branch to allocate federal funds, the problem of members trading their votes in exchange for earmarks will continue. The only difference will be that instead of trading their votes to win favor with Congressional appropriators and House leadership, members will trade their votes to get funding from the Executive branch. Transferring power over allocation of taxpayer dollars from the legislative branch to the executive branch is hardly a victory for republican government. Reducing Congress’s role in allocating of tax dollars, without reducing the Federal budget, also means State and local officials, to say nothing of ordinary citizens, will have less input into how Federal funds are spent.
trade
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:6
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.
trade
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:35
We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Almadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list?
trade
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:79
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
trade
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:2
The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting barriers up.
trade
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:32
I would like you to rethink our policy, not only there, but the kind of policy that led to 60,000 people dying in Vietnam and then walking away. And what happened after we walked away? We are better off than ever. We had a naval ship going into Vietnam just recently. We trade with them. We do deals with them. Yet it was a total fiasco and a total loss because of the way we went to war.
trade
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:35
So it is not a sign of weakness to talk about neutrality. It is a sign of strength that you have a little bit of courage and you believe in your own system. If we want to spread our values, it is a good way to do it. Set a good example. Put our financial house in order. Treat people evenly, and trade with people, and talk to people and travel.
trade
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:8
Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case. Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer subsidized trade as well, courtesy of the Ex-Im Bank. At a time when the Federal Government is running huge deficits and Congress is once again preparing to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayers’ funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and Communist China?
trade
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:14
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” 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 losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.
trade
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:16
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 it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
trade
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:14
Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright protections and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as free trade.
trade
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:15
It is virtually impossible to find anyone who supports hands-off free trade defended by the moral right of all citizens to spend their money as they see fit without being subject to any special interest.
trade
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:38
We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in the civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam, we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel and communicate with a unified Western- leaning country that is catching on quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.
trade
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:39
This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot, and they certainly are a lot less costly.
trade
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:44
Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China and even the Eastern Bloc nations of the old Soviet empire.
trade
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 87:6
Dairy Farmer and Rancher Bob Parker best stated the case against NAIS: “We currently have the systems in place to track animals, as has just happened with the recent ‘mad cow’ in Alabama. Sacrificing our freedoms for security is not a good trade off, in my opinion. Our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of Government becoming too big. This plan is too intrusive, to costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.” I urge my colleagues to listen to Mr. Parker and protect America’s small farmers and ranchers from being burdened with a costly, intrusive and unnecessary NAIS program by cosponsoring H.R. 6042.
trade
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:4
Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years.
trade
The Port Of Galveston: A Source Of Economic Growth For Texas And The Nation
1 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 33:5
Madam Speaker, the Port of Galveston’s contribution to the Texas and United States economies is by no means limited to the cruise business. The port also plays a vital role in the global economy by facilitating trade with Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Germany, China, Israel, Italy, and other countries.
trade
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:4
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1257 gives the Securities and Exchange Commission the power to force publicly traded corporations to consider shareholders’ votes on nonbinding resolutions concerning the compensation packages of CEOs. Giving the SEC the power to require shareholder votes on any aspect of corporate governance, even on something as seemingly inconsequential as a nonbinding resolution, illegitimately expands Federal authority into questions of private governance.
trade
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:1
The imbalances in international trade, and in particular trade between China and the United States, have prompted many to demand a realignment of the Chinese yuan and the American dollar. Since we are running a huge trade deficit with China the call now is for a stronger yuan and a weaker dollar. This trade imbalance problem will not be solved so easily.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:5
This deep and legitimate concern for the trade imbalance between China and the US will fall short if the issue of fluctuating, world-wide fiat currencies, is not addressed.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:6
The fact that the US dollar is the principal reserve currency of the world gives us a benefit that others do not enjoy. It allows us to export paper dollars and import goods manufactured in countries with cheap labor. It also allows us to finance the welfare/warfare state with cheap loans from China and Japan. It's a good deal for us but according to economic law must come to an end, and the end will be messy for the US consumer and for world trade.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:9
Financing deficits with monetary inflation is in itself a weak dollar policy in the long term. Trust in our currency due to our economic and military strength artificially props up the dollar on international exchange markets. Since these benefits come not from production or sound money policies, they only contribute to the instability and imbalances in international trade.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:11
Our current account deficit and huge foreign indebtedness is a reflection of the world monetary system of fiat money. The longer the trade imbalances last, the more difficult the adjustment will be. The market will eventually force these adjustments on us.
trade
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:12
Eventually it will be necessary to consider commodity-based money to solve the trade imbalances that concern so many here in the Congress.
trade
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:6
Misguided and outdated trade polices are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson- Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson- Vanik’s threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States’ access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Khazaskin, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations.
trade
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:13
This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism, that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
trade
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:38
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
trade
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 56:3
What is most annoying about the World Bank are the criticisms alleging that the Bank and its actions demonstrate the negative side of free-market capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The World Bank is not an organization devoted to capitalism, or to the free market, but to state-run corporate capitalism. Established and managed by a multitude of national governments, the World Bank promotes managed trade, by which politically connected individuals and corporation enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.
trade
Unanticipated Good results (When We leave)
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 57:9
After we left Vietnam under dire circumstances, chaos continued, but no more American lives were lost. But, subsequently, we and the Vietnamese have achieved in peace what could not be achieved in war. We now are friends. We trade with each other, and we invest in Vietnam. The result proves the sound advice of the Founders: Trade in friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Example and persuasion is far superior to force of arms for promoting America’s goodness.
trade
Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel
18 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 70:4
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
trade
Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 78:2
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 or change their policies 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 sanctions mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
trade
Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 78:3
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 areas.
trade
Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 78:5
It is said that we non-interventionists are somehow “isolationists” because we don’t want to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations. But the real isolationists are those who demand that we isolate certain peoples overseas because we disagree with the policies of their leaders. The best way to avoid war, to promote American values, and to spread real freedom and liberty is to engage in trade and contacts with the rest of the world as broadly as possible.
trade
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:3
While I am in favor of unencumbered free trade, free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy.
trade
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:5
Diplomatic efforts cannot work through blustering language and vague retaliatory threats. It requires an awareness both of the many benefits of trade with China and the fact that our current trade imbalances are largely the responsibility of our trade policies. We must understand that China is not a 98-pound weakling who can be bossed around. If we treat other countries with respect and as equal partners, we might be pleased to find that our requests receive a more attentive ear.
trade
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:2
I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
trade
Foreign Government Investment in the U.S. Economy and Financial Sector
March 5, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 11:6
Sovereign wealth funds are a necessary consequence of fiscal and monetary policies which have left us overextended. Actions to stifle the operations of sovereign wealth funds and corresponding retaliatory actions by foreign countries could have the same detrimental effects on the economy as the trade wars begun after passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Rather than take actions to limit or prohibit the actions of sovereign wealth funds, I would urge my colleagues to take action to end our inflationary monetary policy.
trade
Expressing concern over Russian involvement in Alexander Litvinenko’s murder
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 17:3
At a time when we should be seeking good relations and expanded trade with Russia, what is the benefit in passing such provocative resolutions? There is none.
trade
INTRODUCTION OF THE TAX RELIEF FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKERS ACT
7 May 2008 2008 Ron Paul 27:4
Unless Congress acts to relieve some of the economic burden the TWIC requirement places on those who work in the port industry, the damage done could reach beyond the port employers and employees to harm businesses that depend on a strong American port industry. This could be very harmful to both interstate and international trade.
trade
Statement Introducing the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act
8 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 41:1
Madame Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act, legislation that will help Americans reduce pollution and the amount they pay for gas. My legislation accomplishes these important goals by providing Americans a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least a 20% higher average fuel economy than the sold or traded-in car. The bill also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase of the more fuel-efficient automobile and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient automobile tax deductible.
trade
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:5
Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age — a globalism we could accept.
trade
Statement on Sovereign Wealth Funds
September 10, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 58:3
In either case, most politicians overlook the fact that we are in this situation because of our loose monetary and fiscal policy. Actions that would stifle the operations of foreign sovereign wealth funds would likely result in corresponding retaliatory actions by foreign countries against American pension funds and could have the same detrimental effects on the economy as the trade wars begun after passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Rather than limiting or prohibiting investment by sovereign wealth funds, we should be concerned with striking at the root of the problem and addressing inflationary monetary and fiscal policy.
trade
“The Economic Outlook”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing. We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling. Instead of allowing overvalued financial assets to take a hit and trade on the market at a more realistic value, the government seeks to purchase overvalued or worthless assets and hold them in the unrealistic hope that at some point in the next few decades, someone might be willing to purchase them.
trade
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:6
What if some day it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens – no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
trade
INTRODUCTION OF THE TAX RELIEF FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKERS ACT
February 13, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 16:4
Unless Congress acts to relieve some of the economic burden the TWIC requirement places on those who work in the port industry, the damage done could reach beyond the port employers and employees to harm businesses that depend on a strong American port industry. This could be very harmful to both interstate and international trade.
trade
FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE CULPRIT
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 17:12
Inflation has been used to pay for all the wars and empires, and they all end badly. Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating; blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results. Besides, the whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system. So let’s stop it. Let us restore a policy of prosperity, peace and liberty. The time has come. Let’s end the Fed.
trade
INTRODUCING THE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AUTOMOBILE TAX CREDIT ACT
March 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act, legislation that will help Americans reduce pollution and the amount they pay for gas. My legislation accomplishes these important goals by providing Americans a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least a 20% higher average fuel economy than the sold or traded- in car. The bill also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase of the more fuel-efficient automobile and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient automobile tax deductible.
trade
RECOGNIZING 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF EGYPT-ISRAEL PEACE TREATY
March 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 40:4
I do believe we should, where possible and without meddling, encourage nations and regions at war or in conflict to work toward peace. But I also believe we should lead by example: that we should demonstrate by our actions the benefits of friendly relations and trade with all nations which seek the same. I strongly oppose the idea that we should bribe the rest of the world to do what we demand. Therefore, while I celebrate the achievement of peace between Egypt and Israel, I do not believe this “model” to be productive or in the best interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
trade
CURRENT CONDITIONS OR JUST A BAD DREAM
May 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It’s surreal; it’s just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.
trade
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:6
Misguided and outdated trade polices are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson- Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson- Vankik’s threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States’ access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Khazaskin, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations.
trade
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
trade
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:14
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,477 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.
trade
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.
trade
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:4
But just think of the tragedy of Vietnam, all those years and all those deaths and all that money spent. Eventually we left, and South Vietnam is now a unified country, but we still have troops in Korea, in Europe, and in Japan. And we are bankrupt. So some day we are going to have to wake up and look at the type of foreign policy that the Founders advised us to have, and that is nonintervention: don’t get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, have free and open trade and accept friendship with other countries who offer it, and that we shouldn’t be the policemen of the world and we shouldn’t be telling other people what to do. We cannot be the policemen of the world and pay for all those bills because we are literally bankrupt.
trade
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
trade
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:3
The sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the dissidents. We’d like to encourage them to overthrow their government. But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things happen. We’ve been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it doesn’t serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us.
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as "Most Favored Nations," or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs.
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a "special" status. In fact, MFN for a country simply means we will trade with that nation with no extraordinary barriers to their entering our marketplace. Free trade is not something to be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more than an attempt, albeit imperfect, at free trade.
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN will have on the American people. Instead, they focus on the real facts that the basic rights of people the rights we as Americans declare come from God are often violated by China. And for that I defer to those who are "on the ground" in China: the missionaries.
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
"As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to travel freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors," Sirico writes. Even worse, the missionaries have been reporting that "such action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in… religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious exchanges."
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
And so the critical question remains: MFN, or no MFN? Ideologically, revoking MFN is a step in the wrong direction, a step away from free trade. It is equally clear that revoking MFN is harmful to our people, and harmful to the Chinese. The ones to suffer will be the very individuals we seek to help, not the powerful elite in Beijing.
trade
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 17 ... Cached
And whether we like it our not, the way we can do that is through trade with China.
trade
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Neither, of course, does the Constitution allow us to subsidize foreign governments through such taxpayer-supported entities as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, Ex-Im/USEX or any number of other vehicles through which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries (including those who engage in religious persecution). It is time we stopped both policing the world, and funding the totalitarian thugs of planet.
trade
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
As to the effectiveness of trade sanctions reforming human rights records, the trade embargo imposed on Cuba for the past thirty years serves as a good example of the lack of the effectiveness of such a policy. According to Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who recently discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries operating in offending countries actual favor economic relationships over isolation, and see engagement as the policy most likely to bring about positive change.
trade
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
I strongly oppose HR 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act, also known as "fast-track." Constitutionally, treaties are the responsibility of the President to negotiate and the Senate to ratify by a two-thirds majority. During the constitutionally proscribed process, the Senate can make changes to sections it finds offensive or improper. As such, the role of the House of Representatives in the treaty process should be a relatively meager one. They try to get around this by claiming that these "agreements" are somehow different from constitutionally described treaties; but that is only so much fast-talk. In practice, a treaty and these agreements are the same thing.
trade
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
Under "fast-track," the president still negotiates measures with foreign governments, then, if he has declared it necessary for trade, the agreement goes before the entire Congress, both the House and Senate. However, there are strict limits on debate -- and therefore opposition -- and there is no opportunity for Congress to make any changes. Further, this legislation forces the trade agreements to be placed as the highest priority on Congress’ schedule.
trade
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Fast-track is the process by which our nation was saddled with the harmful North American Free Trade Agreement. I favor the notion of removing trade barriers, and the quickening of the process by which these barriers can be eradicated. But free trade does not require massive NAFTA-like documents which impose extensive government regulatory burdens upon citizens of signatory countries. Free trade agreements should be far less complex, bilateral, and not require formation of international bodies for their enforcement.
trade
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largess of the Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US taxpayers cash into Beijing's coffers.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 3 ... Cached
Serious debate on presidential power derided, principle of free-trade weakened By US Representative Ron Paul
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
An American wit once said that every man's life or property is in danger when Congress is in session. If that's true, then America is safe at least until the end of January because Congress finished its legislative business for the year last week. But all is not closed on the issue of trade.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
This 25-year-old process is ingrained in the political process and will not soon disappear. The imperial presidency is alive and well as Congress continues the process of ceding power to the executive branch through such processes as the Line Item Veto, administrative law, the War Powers Act, executive orders and trade negotiations. As Congress - and especially the House - reneges on its responsibilities under the concept of separation of powers, the people suffer by loosing their most important conduit to the federal government.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Members of Congress opposed Fast-Track for various reasons: some sensible, some less so. Serious proponents of fast-track claimed their support came from a dedication to free trade. Less serious supporters were swayed by political deals, threats and even pressure from financial supporters. This process is nothing new, but record offers were made to persuade Members of Congress to change their vote and support the fast-track authority - regardless of party affiliation. Making up the bulk of opposition to the authority were congressmen supporting the unions and the protectionists, really concerned only about their particular niches.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, proponents of individual liberty and low-tariffs, positions held by a scant few. We opposed the fast-track authority for what it is: an unconstitutional shift of power designed to promote managed trade to benefit the politically connected. But the arguments of principled free-traders were cavalierly dismissed by the supporters of fast-track; thoughtful opposition is not allowed when it comes to violating the Constitution.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Second, the fast-track backers claimed to be the defenders of free-trade, yet they have no history of ever promoting free market economics and sound money. Instead they prefer to manage a welfare state and use the mechanisms of the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, foreign aid, and the federal reserve system to benefit their corporate friends.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
So why the sudden rhetoric of free-trade to prop-up fast-track? Could it be that fast-track, the process which gave us NAFTA, has, in reality, nothing to do with free trade? Could it be that the real protectionists - the protectors of the big corporations - have realized that fast-track serves their interests by promoting a managed trade system that benefits the existing players at the expense of upstart competitors? Certainly. The ready willingness to grant exemptions to various industries and commodities during the negotiations suggests less than a principled effort to promote free and unhampered trade.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Fast-track is the solution to a non-existent problem. There is no reason why free trade - if that is really the desired goal - cannot be accomplished without existing structure. Agreements can be easily drawn up between nations in a simple, efficient fashion - with Congress' full participation. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length, it's only when protections for various industries, bonuses for certain corporations, are added in fine print that the agreements turn into novels.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
The whole debate over fast-track, slow-track and trade barriers completely ignores a very simple reality: countries that impose high tariffs on the people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export products to them.
trade
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
The fast-track deliberation has had the effect, either by design or by consequence, to obscure the real need and processes for freedom in trade. While it is fortunate that for the many, varied reasons, fast-track was placed on the political shelf for the season, the set-back to those who would limit trade is only temporary. Expect them, and their rhetoric, to be back in full-force when Congress resumes legislative activity in 1998.
trade
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government - including the President, the Congress and the courts - is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths - from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia - our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened.
trade
US should stop meddling in foreign wars
16 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
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?
trade
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
The "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997" proposes that a new office be created within the Clinton Administration, with the stated purpose to "provide for the imposition of economic sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution." Numerous issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant elaboration, discussion, and debate: constitutional authority, effectiveness of trade sanctions, rights "swapping," and the practicality of such an approach.
trade
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Constitutional considerations temporarily set aside, it would be commendable if the legislation could at least be justified based upon some proven or demonstrated effectiveness of trade sanctions. The effectiveness of trade sanctions for reforming human rights records is, at best, unscientific and empirically unjustified. Harsh economic sanctions against Cuba for more than thirty years have done nothing to alter that nation's record on human rights or political bent.
trade
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
While the right to free religious exercise absent interference from the state is an important right, it is not the only right. Any list of individual rights must also include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. Removing trade barriers benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available from those who have a comparative advantage in the respective good. Those individuals who choose, for moral or religious reasons, not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are, of course, not threatened by removing barriers for those who, for whatever reasons, choose to do so. Further, the right of United States citizens to travel freely, at their own expense, is also infringed upon by the portion of the bills limiting the availability of commercial flights.
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Nowhere is that more evident than in our nation's trade policy. All who embrace the philosophy of liberty and have a love for freedom have a strong desire for others to break free from the shackles of oppressive regimes. And while we want to see dictators and tyrants fall, we hate to see innocents injured by our action - or our inaction.
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation's publication, Farm Bureau News, did a remarkable job of highlighting how trade sanctions on foreign countries actually do a great deal of damage to Americans without effectively changing the status quo in the country we are ostensibly trying to "help."
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Illinois Farm Bureau president Ron Warfield is quoted as saying that he and the Farm Bureau "strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts. We believe that opening trade systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability."
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Again quoting Mr. Warfield from the American Farm Bureau publication, "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. 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."
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
And there is another dynamic in place as we look toward engagement rather than isolation, and that is the issue of aid. For years the American taxpayer has been forced to subsidize hundreds of governments around the world, including those of some of the most vicious dictators in history, in the name of either "promoting human rights" in that country, or in the interest of "national security." Often times, tax dollars are being used to prop up these dictators, while at the same time trade sanctions prevent US farmers and small businessmen from selling their products in that market.
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
A more sensible - constitutionally, morally and economically - alternative to our current foreign policy is one of engagement by individuals in trade, and an end to the imperious system of foreign aid. Unless a nation represents a clear and present danger to our national security, we should allow, even encourage, our best ambassadors - who are our businessmen, our farmers, our ranchers - to engage in mutually beneficial trade with people of all nations and regions. As goods are traded, so are ideas. And just as American products are the finest in the world, so too is the philosophy of liberty.
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 17 ... Cached
Of course, this policy still leaves open the chance for Americans of conscience to boycott products made in other nations, or to choose not to do business with Americans who enter into trade with countries of which they disapprove.
trade
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 18 ... Cached
Our nation should adopt a policy of free and open trade, not immoral and forced aid, in our relations with foreign countries, to the benefit of their people and ours.
trade
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But most importantly, our trade deficit, and the willingness of foreigners and foreign central banks to take our inflated dollars and hold them gives us a free ride for now and for as long as they see fit to accept our greatest export: our inflation and debt.
trade
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
If this president not only broke the law by accepting donations from a potentially hostile foreign government, but proceeded to trade our nation's military secrets as a "quid pro quo," then this president must be impeached.
trade
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But in time the free ride 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.
trade
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
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.
trade
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 17 ... Cached
Fourth, policies 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.
trade
The Ominous Budget Deal
26 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
It just isn’t a good trade-off: sending our troops to fight winless wars which have no impact on our security while funneling tax dollars to organizations which operate in direct conflict with US values, so at the same time foreign inspectors can come here to weaken our defense.
trade
Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again
02 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Once again the United States is acting out of its league in trying to induce Israel to trade their security for an almost certain temporary peace, while attempting to persuade Palestinians to accept only a fraction of what they want. While past meddling has resulted mostly in US commitments to sending more tax dollars as aid to both sides, this time the costs may be much greater. Costly in lives, costly in national security, and costly in precedence.
trade
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Both parties, unfortunately, endorse the use of government force to police the world, to redistribute wealth domestically and internationally, and to manipulate money and credit. Both allow government to invade our privacy as a trade-off for the government financing of education, medical care, and housing, arguing such invasion is necessary to run the system efficiently, and prevent waste and fraud. In the name of "public safety," neither party resists the federal government’s takeover of local law enforcement.
trade
Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems
23 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
We must make radical changes in our approach to foreign policy. (1) Trade and engagement encourage not only peace, but allows individuals currently living under despots to have intimate contact with free peoples, showing them a better way exists. (2) Understanding the history of a region prevents us from trying to step in and determine "winners" and "losers" by settling "peace" among peoples who have been waging war since before Columbus sailed the seas. And, (3) ending the give-away of tax dollars to various countries is not only more responsible for our people, but less likely to antagonize nations as they compare who is and is not on the American dole for how much. George Washington encouraged our nation to be friends with all and enemies with none.
trade
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we can somehow spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
trade
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
While Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and I are often at odds on issues of monetary policy, he perhaps best described the president's plan. "Let me just say it's not so much a trade-off of benefits versus costs. I'm frankly just hard-pressed to find any benefits there are in doing it."
trade
Phase-in of tax cuts make code more complex
01 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Come next year, small businesses will also be able to deduct up to $19,000 in expenses for tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the conduct of a trade or business. The deduction is up from the $18,500 that can be claimed on 1998's tax year. By 2003, the deduction will increase to $25,000 in 2003 and thereafter.
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 2 ... Cached
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 3 ... Cached
"Fair," protected and subsidized trade harms consumer, economy
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Forces of protectionism won a victory recently; a victory over the American consumer and the principle of free trade. Of course, as with so many issues in Washington, DC, it is almost impossible to understand who are the free-traders, fair-traders and protectionists without a scorecard; and even then, of course, none of those words actually mean anything in debates on the House floor.
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
"Fair trade!" has become the rallying cry. Sadly, though, there is little "fair" about these policies, and even less about their outcome. This "fairness" means gouging consumers for higher prices using the force of government to protect the rackets of organizations unwilling to work within the system of voluntary exchange.
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
This "fairness" extends to other arenas. Take, for example, the situation with Cuba. For three decades national policy has forbade trade with Cuba, on the grounds that we are trying to force Castro from power. To date, that policy has not only been unsuccessful, it has backfired. But, in the name of "fairness" and "security," Cuba's poor do not have access to American inexpensive food and medicine.
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
For while many in Washington call themselves "free-traders," but there is nothing free about their agendas. The so-called "free-trader" in Congress is often one who believes in subsidizing trade; that is, using taxpayer dollars to prop-up foreign governments on the condition that those governments then use the money to purchase goods from certain American companies (which in turn lobby for "protections," creating a vicious cycle).
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
The others who misuse the "free-trade" label are the managed trade proponents. These are the ones responsible for empowering the international regulatory bureaucracies of NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization, all of which have as much in common with free trade as protectionism does.
trade
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
True free trade involves neither protectionism nor subsidization. Free trade recognizes that market forces, not government regulations or spending packages, will best allocate resources; even across political borders.
trade
Post Office stamps out privacy
24 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Assaults on privacy are rampant. No sooner have we been successful in stopping four agencies from implementing Orwellian invasions into the financial records of every American citizen, but now the US Post Office has moved to severely limit privacy and restrict trade.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 2 ... Cached
Free trade makes sense
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Once again the contentious debate over trade with China is before the Congress, but this time with the added twist of allegations of spying.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
And, once again, those opposed to free trade will join forces with those favoring taxpayer subsidization of foreign countries to mangle the English language and thoroughly confuse the issue.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
For instance, if someone says they are for "free trade," one must look carefully what they really mean, for the classic (and common sense) definition does not apply.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means "subsidized trade," or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called "isolationists." There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves "fair traders," though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not "fair" in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Sadly, these definitions all hinge on the assumption that there are essentially only two options: tax dollars being used to subsidize corporations/foreign governments, or no trade whatsoever without the rubber stamp of government bureaucrats and special interest groups.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Both the "fair traders" and the "subsidizers" now have a fantastic phantom upon which to justify their higher taxes and greater regulations: the Chinese spy scandal. This is a phantom for there is simply no connection between the spying and true free trade. In fact, it was the policy of subsidization and trade regulation, as well as generally lax security, which allowed the illegal transfers of technology. But to blame free trade, and then penalize average Americans, for the spying is the height of dishonesty.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
If we are to end trade with all nations which spy on us, or upon whom we spy, then we will quickly find far fewer products available at the supermarket, and much higher prices on everything.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 17 ... Cached
Never, though, should Congress raise taxes or limit the ability of individual Americans to engage in honest trade with foreign manufacturers. While the market may demand - through boycotts and similar activities - that trade cease, that should be left entirely to the market, not bureaucrats in Washington.
trade
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 18 ... Cached
Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people.
trade
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
These days, of course, the rhetoric of bailing out the corporations is made with allusions to "free trade"; a laughable proposition that could not be further from reality.
trade
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Several weeks ago we engaged in the annual debate over the level of free trade our citizens could have with China. I always take the position that one should have free markets and allow Americans to trade with whomever they please, but at the same time taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize foreign governments. The crowd I cannot understand is the one that argues against free trade yet supports subsidizing China and other brutal regimes around the world. That is the other half of what we do with OPIC, the Export-Import Bank and other international managed-trade organizations. By propping up the corporations that move to China, not only are we subsidizing bad business decisions, but also using tax dollars to shore up China's economy without their having to feel the pressure of the free market to change their ways.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. Although many of those who were protesting were indeed rallying against what they see as the evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The WTO is the furthest thing from free trade. 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. And, since sovereignty is linked inextricably to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Let's face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The WTO is a quasi-governmental agency and hence it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let's call a spade a spade. The WTO is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected, campaign contributors and fat cats get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group. Preferred that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
If we had a true understanding of the idea of sovereignty, and of free trade, I believe we would make the right decision immediately. Thus, on this issue, our primary objective must be education.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
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. One only need read John Dickenson's Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer to discover this.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
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 effect of this is 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.
trade
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
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. The colonists and founders clearly recognized that tariffs are taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign companies. 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. Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Barrier to Free Trade
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced.
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
If one truly believes in free trade, one never argues a need for reciprocity or bureaucratic management of trade. If free trade is truly beneficial, as so many claim, unilateral free trade is an end in itself and requires neither treaties nor international management by politicians and bureaucrats. A country should promote free trade in its own self-interest -- never for the benefit of someone else.
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a "cost" of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a "deal."
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Belonging to the WTO undermines national sovereignty. An encouraging sign is that those on the left, who frequently champion international causes, are becoming more aware of the shortcomings of organizations like the World Trade Organization when it undermines domestic laws, such as those protecting health, workers, environment, and consumers. The argument that membership in the World Trade Organization does not undermine national sovereignty is not supported by the facts. The CRS report on the World Trade Organization (August 25, 1999) is explicit in its explanation: "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 national laws do not conflict with WTO rules."
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The most blatant example of the World Trade Organization undermining US sovereignty was the recent ruling rejecting US tax breaks to US companies doing business overseas. The European Union charged that the Foreign Sales Corporation program established in 1984 is now an "illegal subsidy," and the WTO appellate panel supported this position. Despite the fact that the US unfairly taxes corporations for profits earned overseas, unlike our foreign competitors, this program was meant to compensate to some degree for this unfairness built into our tax code. Nevertheless the WTO, in a ridiculous ruling, claimed that allowing a company to keep more of its own money through lower taxes is a "subsidy" -- something given at the behest of government.
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
This example clearly demonstrates that membership in the World Trade Organization is in conflict with our Constitution, undermining our legal system and our sovereignty. The message is clear. For us to be a responsible member of the WTO we must follow the rules, and, if we do, Congress must capitulate and raise taxes on our corporations by repealing the Foreign Sales Corporation program. As was explained by the CRS, members are "legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with World Trade Organization rules."
trade
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
I have introduced HJR 90 to protect US Sovereignty, and true free trade, by withdrawing our membership from the World Trade Organization. If you are not a resident of the 14th district of Texas and would like to know where your representative stands on this issue, I encourage you to call his or her office and ask them.
trade
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
This week protesters came to Washington, DC, to make known their opposition to the policies of international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Many of these people were also present at the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization.
trade
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Similarly, I met in my office with representatives of organized labor this week. They are concerned about international trade issues. As I explained to them, the basis of their problem is not trade but managed trade and the fact that America subsidizes their competitors. They are very open to this argument but are convinced they should continue to tinker around the edges at present, fighting trade status for this or that country, one battle at a time.
trade
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
My approach is to end the World Trade Organization. Although there is considerable sympathy for this approach, the groups and people who express their agreement seem content to work on minor side issues. Or, they refuse to work together with others who they distrust. This latter concern was suggested to me when I spoke to a coalition of the leaders of top conservative groups in Washington about the WTO this week.
trade
The Cost of War
01 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
The administration likes to argue that these issues are not constrained by national boundaries. They say such global issues call for global solutions, for which they usually propose global agencies such as the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. They say these problems are global, so America must send billions of dollars in taxpayer funding to other countries to help them with their environmental, economic, and health-related problems.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This week changes to the bill on trade relations with China meant that I had to vote against the legislation. I have consistently voted for normal trade relations with China, but here we have a situation where the House leadership gave in to the liberal Democrat demand for more government. I could not support that.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Also, consider the process in which these changes were made. For months we have been talking about PNTR, and I said I would support normal trade relations. The first version of the bill was put forward by the sub-committee chaired by my good friend Phil Crane, a strong advocate of free markets and free trade. After seeing HR 4444, I was able to again voice strong support for PNTR. However, we wound up in a last minute situation where the President was unable to convince his own party to support him. A backroom deal was cut aimed at winning votes from liberal Democrats. I will not support this method of operation.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The people who elected us have criticized this Congress. Time and again I have heard it said that we are not doing the job we have been elected to do. We have given in to President Clinton and the liberal minority in the House. Enough is enough. These last minute changes left us a PNTR bill that created a new government commission and put taxpayers on the line for millions in so-called "technical aid" to Communist China. Apparently the administration believed left-wing members of Congress could be convinced to vote for freer trade and freer markets just so long as we give more foreign aid to our Communist Chinese adversaries.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Managed trade features of the legislation also disappointed me. It is tiresome to hear over and over about free trade from the very people who are trying to cut off free trade. For example, this last minute language included so called anti-surge protections. How in the world can any serious person suggest this is free trade? The changes made to appease the liberals made this bill the very opposite of what it had been purported to be. As so often happens with large bills in Washington, PNTR became a vehicle for big government, managed trade, foreign aid giveaways and the creation of new government commissions. I could have supported a clean bill that simply meant lower tariffs, but this bill, and the means by which these changes were brought about, cried out for rejection of the legislation and the entire process.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Another example that shows what happened to the contents of this so called free trade bill is seen in the provision putting American taxpayers on the hook for nearly $100 million dollars in new spending for radio broadcasts aimed not just at China but other Asian countries. So much for our commitment not to spend Social Security surpluses on other government programs.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
In the days and weeks ahead we will consider HJR 90. This is legislation that I introduced to remove the United States from the World Trade Organization, or WTO. Just as this PNTR bill ended up as a vehicle for foreign aid giveaways and managed trade, the WTO is an egregious attack on U.S. sovereignty and a colossal attempt at managed trade, all pursued in the name of free trade.
trade
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
Free trade is about free markets, which means limiting government interference in the marketplace. We face high hurdles for the philosophy of less government in the foreseeable future because the Congressional trade debate is now limited to the voices of outright protectionists and those who, in the name of free trade, promote a regime of managed trade which threatens the sovereignty upon which our fundamental liberties will always depend.
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Tuesday evening, House lawmakers reached a compromise agreement that will permit U.S. exports of food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in nearly 40 years. This partial repeal of the trade embargo was proposed by Representative George Nethercutt of Washington State,who has joined me in working to open trade with Cuba. The agreement allows U.S. businesses to sell food or medicine to Cuba, while prohibiting the federal government from financing or otherwise subsidizing such sales. The agreement also prohibits the President from imposing further restrictions on food or medicine sales to other countries without congressional approval. I applaud this compromise as a good step in the direction of true free trade- it allows more trade, while prohibiting government subsidization of trade.
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
"The usual politics have accompanied the agreement. The provisions have been added and removed from two different appropriations bills. The President opposes the agreement, as it threatens his "authority" to assess trade sanctions against countries at will. Of course, he has no such authority, as the power to regulate foreign trade is expressly delegated to Congress in the Constitution. Currently, House leaders plan to take the Nethercutt agreement into conference with the Senate on an agricultural bill. My hope is that free trade principles and restrictions on unconstitutional executive orders remain intact.
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
"Still, farmers in the 14th District would benefit from access to this new market (as well as access to four other countries named in the agreement). Trade advisory groups estimate that U.S. exports of food to Cuba alone could amount to $400 million within five years. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the aggregate market for agricultural commodities to all five countries amounts to $7 billion. Rather than punishing our farmers with sanctions, we should be eliminating barriers so that they can export agricultural products to these countries. Sanctions simply benefit our export competitors, who have increased their sales in markets closed to American businesses. Over one-third of U.S. agricultural production is exported, so farmers suffer disproportionately when trade restrictions are imposed.
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
"Nevertheless, the Nethercutt agreement is beneficial, but not perfect. I introduced a more comprehensive bill in March 1999 (H.R. 1181). My bill would have removed trade restrictions with Cuba completely, so that all types of U.S. products could be exported. In addition, my bill prohibited any federal assistance or taxpayer subsidies to Cuba. Also, I would allow American banks to finance sales to Cuba (or any other nation), so that Texas farmers would not have to seek financing from foreign banks. My bill would have created true free trade with Cuba, with no restrictions and no subsidies by the federal government. Still, the current agreement represents an endorsement of many of the principles contained in my bill, and I support it accordingly.
trade
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
"I have always supported true free trade not simply because it makes economic sense for Texas agriculture, but also because it is a critical component of private property rights and human freedom. "Sanctions," closing foreign markets, really are penalties on Texas farmers who export much of what they produce. Such sanctions ought never be permitted merely by executive order. We have a long way to go in reforming agricultural policy and ending embargoes which hurt our farmers, but this agreement is an important first step and a victory for Texas farmers. I will continue the battle to get HR 1181 passed so that we might realize the full benefits of free trade with Cuba.
trade
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws.
trade
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade.
trade
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, 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," (emphasis added).
trade
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Earlier this year I sought to address this terrible threat to our sovereignty by introducing a resolution withdrawing us from the WTO. I explained my concerns in a brief to the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, pointing out the unconstitutionality of our involvement. I warned that the WTO could begin dictating our environmental, labor, and tax laws. These arguments were met with hostility and condescension. Subcommittee members stated that we need the WTO to avoid "trade wars," and that the U.S. Congress would never change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO. "Unthinkable" was how one member put it. Judging by this week's vote, the "unthinkable" has become reality.
trade
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
We should never change our national laws at the behest of any international organization. Congress simply has ceded its legislative authority to the WTO, and it is shameful that this action likely will go unnoticed by the American people. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income. The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. We stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war with the EU, even though we were told that the WTO was needed to avoid such conflicts. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
trade
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Members of Congress often encourage us to "buy American" during their speeches on the House floor. Some members regularly place a "buy American" clause in various trade-related bills, seeking to protect domestic jobs by encouraging the purchase of American goods. Ironically, however, many of these same legislators vote to prohibit American companies from gaining access to new markets overseas. They do so by supporting our senseless embargo policies, which simply help our foreign trading competitors at the expense of American companies.
trade
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course most politicians claim that they support free trade. Intuitively, most Americans understand that access to foreign markets provides significant benefits to US citizens and American-based corporations. However, we continue to pursue a policy of denying or restricting domestic companies from selling to Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, and other countries. This inconsistency is especially evident when we consider "export financing," which really is foreign aid designed to help other countries buy American goods. Most Washington politicians support the practice of export financing, arguing that access to foreign markets benefits American companies, and not just foreign consumers. However, the opposite argument is made with regard to our embargo policies. Suddenly, increased trade with countries some want to label as unworthy only benefits sinister foreign consumers, and not domestic producers. This nonsensical position is maintained by many in government who favor government-managed trade which benefits certain chosen special interests.
trade
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.
trade
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The ultimate result of our embargo policies is obvious: when our government prevents American companies from selling their goods abroad, it creates an economic hardship for those companies and their employees. Similarly, when the government prevents American consumers from buying the goods or services they want from certain countries, it simply diminishes the living standards of those Americans. Washington intervention in international trade only benefits certain special interests for a short time. In the long run, the vast majority of American citizens and businesses would benefit from unfettered access to all foreign markets. An example is the relatively unregulated software industry, where American companies absolutely dominate the global marketplace. Americans don't need help competing, but they do need a government which does not hinder their access to foreign markets. By following the current policy of government-managed trade and special interest favoritism, Congress is harming the constituents it was elected to represent. The sooner we adopt policies which promote free exchange with all nations, the better off our nation and its people will be.
trade
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The irony is that we also subsidize the Chinese government and people through the United Nations and our own Export-Import Bank. Americans should be very concerned when their tax dollars are sent to the same regime portrayed as an enemy by our own government. We should not subsidize trade or provide foreign aid to any country, and it is folly to believe those dollars will not be used against us. We just witnessed a terrible example of the danger of foreign aid: the Chinese fighter threatening the lives of our crew carried Israeli missiles built with American aid dollars. Perhaps this incident will make more Americans aware of the perils of arming both our "friends" and our enemies."
trade
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The best route to a lasting peace with China is true free trade, meaning trade without government barriers, subsidies, or multinational bodies like the WTO. Mao's China, closed from trade with the world, would have had little incentive to return our captured crew, and every incentive to use them as hostages. Today's China, while still authoritarian, depends on America to buy billions in goods. The Chinese government thus faced political and economic pressure to settle the dispute peacefully, rather than alienate millions of American consumers. Politics aside, few countries want to go to war with their customers or their suppliers.
trade
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
trade
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week 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 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.
trade
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
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.
trade
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
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 areas. 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.
trade
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
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.
trade
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
trade
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress recently considered several trade-related measures containing massive subsidies for American corporations that sell their products overseas. For example, the Export-Import bank received more than $750 million in appropriations funding last week. The biggest beneficiary of this money is China, which has used Ex-Im funds to build nuclear power plants, expand its state-run airline, and even build steel factories that compete directly with our own struggling domestic steel industry. Undoubtedly the American companies who benefit from contracts with China are happy with these trade subsidies, but American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for corporate welfare that simply benefits some politically favored interests. I introduced an amendment to completely defund the Ex-Im bank, because true free trade cannot flourish when subsidies interfere with healthy market competition. Unfortunately, however, the debate in Washington tends to focus on which nations and companies should be subsidized, rather than whether American taxpayers should pay for trade subsidies at all.
trade
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
I focus on the Constitution when voting on trade issues. This approach leads me to always oppose trade subsidies, as there is no enumerated power that gives Congress authority to send your money abroad to help big corporations sell their products. The current system allows the most powerful interests, with the largest political lobbies, to prevail in the Congressional pork subsidy game. So the biggest corporations tend to get bigger, while smaller competitors face a very uneven playing field. This is not free trade, but rather government-mangaged trade epitomized by international bodies like NAFTA and the WTO. As noted Austrian economist Murray Rothbard explained, we don't need government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-managed trade always means political favoritism. Merit, rather than politics, should determine which companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out of the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans.
trade
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, I always oppose trade sanctions against foreign nations. Sanctions are terribly ineffective foreign policy tools that harm the people, rather than the governments, of nations we hold in disfavor. Sanctions also hurt American exporters, including Texas farmers, who are prohibited from selling their products overseas. 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 sanctions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in those nations. 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. I recently voted to against continued trade sanctions against Iran and Libya, and I have introduced legislation to end our trade embargo against Cuba. All Americans benefit from both sides of the free trade equation, and Congress should not interfere with exports any more than it should tax imports.
trade
U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
05 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we're getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO. Afghanistan is in chaos, its people starving, and its government is now an outright enemy of the United States. As we yet again find ourselves at war with forces we once funded and supported, the wisdom of foreign aid must be challenged. Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas.
trade
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Many Americans already have grave concerns about the loss of sovereignty inherent in our participation in global government organizations like the UN and the WTO (World Trade Organization). Few understand, however, the extent to which Congress already capitulates to the globalists when it writes the laws that affect all of us.
trade
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America's Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.
trade
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
New revelations concerning wrongdoings at Enron seem to surface every day, and the scandal took a tragic turn last week with the suicide of a top Enron executive. In Washington, Congress has been scrambling to assemble hearings that will make various members look properly outraged and committed to reform. The popular media and some politicians want to portray Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. Already legislation has been introduced to force all publicly traded companies to submit to federal audits.
trade
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
I applaud the proponents of vouchers for having the initiative to try something new that challenges the federal government’s virtual monopoly on education. It’s admirable to apply a market approach to schools. Forty years of Great Society federal programs have done nothing but make our public schools worse. Fifty years ago, before the federal government became involved in public education, American grammar and high schools were the best in the world. Students faced a demanding curriculum of math, hard sciences, geography, literature, western civilization, spelling and grammar, Latin, and useful trades. They even learned American history, which is sadly lacking in today’s schools. Teachers were respected, and free to enforce discipline without fear of lawsuits or being undermined by school administrators and parents.
trade
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly-paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with fat pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by the politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however- and nobody ever looks back and says, "Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago." For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We should hardly be surprised that such a government racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will someday have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.
trade
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports was disappointing to free trade advocates. 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. 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. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.
trade
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs 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. The tariffs will especially affect Texas, where building trades use large amounts of imported steel. 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. 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.
trade
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the World Trade Organization was supposed to bring to global trade? The European Union and other steel-producing nations are preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect their own steel industries, setting the stage for a potential global trade war. 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 seeing 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!
trade
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
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. 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.
trade
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
trade
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds. We give up our sovereignty, but fail to win any real allies. We pay all the bills, risk the lives of our young people, and invite UN meddling in our domestic laws, yet still we sow the seeds of discontent and future hostility with the world community. All because we have abandoned our Constitution and the founder’s ideal of noninterventionism in favor of globalism. What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
trade
Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
02 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We can and should remove our troops from the region quickly, before any more American lives are lost. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
trade
Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003?
30 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
After a horrific fifteen years in Vietnam, we removed our troops completely from the region. Today, our nation enjoys friendly diplomatic and trade relations with that country, and we’ve been able to heal some of the pain experienced by both our GIs and the Vietnamese people. Somehow, we seem unable to apply the same lesson to Korea.
trade
The Myth of War Prosperity
10 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
We should expect the financial markets to react badly to an invasion of Iraq. Although military victory should be swift, prolonged urban fighting in Baghdad or other cities would cause investor confidence to plunge. This lack of confidence in the U.S. economy will make trade more difficult and cause our trade deficit to rise.
trade
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile 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.
trade
War Profiteers
07 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 13 ... Cached
-$100,000 for the U.S. Court of International Trade.
trade
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Our current approach of alternately using and ignoring the UN results in the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we give credibility to the concepts of international law and global government. We give up precious sovereignty not only to the UN, but also through trade agreements and organizations like the WTO and NAFTA. Yet while we cede more and more of our national identity to the globalists, we gain little in exchange. Other nations see us as willing to ignore the global rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain hated and mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty.
trade
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Americans should seize the chance to expose the myth of so-called “international law.” Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people. Simply stated, just laws are derived from the consent of the governed, and Americans have not consented to be governed by foreign individuals or bodies. Constitutionally speaking, only Congress can craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. When the UN attempts to dictate our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws- as it already has- we need to remember that only the representative US Congress has authority to make our national laws
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Although it was scarcely reported in the press, an extraordinary event took place in Washington earlier this month. Pascal Lamy, The European Union trade czar, visited with influential members of Congress for the express purpose of determining whether a new tax bill is being crafted to his satisfaction. If Mr. Lamy- a member of the French Socialist Party- is unsatisfied with the changes made to our tax code, he threatens to unleash a European trade war against U.S. imports. In effect he is a foreign bureaucrat acting as a shadow legislator by intervening in our lawmaking process.
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
This unseemly saga stems from our participation in the World Trade Organization. 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.”
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
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. Consider this rosy description by one well-known “libertarian” think thank: “The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism helps nations resolve trade disputes without resorting to costly trade wars. The system relies on voluntary compliance and does not compromise national sovereignty.”
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The WTO has given us the worst of both worlds: We’ve sacrificed national sovereignty by changing our domestic laws at the behest of an international body, yet we still face trade wars. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by providing our foreign competitors with a collective means to attack U.S. trade interests.
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.
trade
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.
trade
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.
trade
UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
17 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
American citizens abroad, of course, are subject to the laws of their host nation. At home, however, American citizens are subject only to our domestic laws. Congress, and Congress alone, has the constitutional power to craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can legally usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. Not even the wildest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress simply to abandon its lawmaking power to another body. Yet this is what UN advocates would have us believe when the UN attempts to dictate or influence our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws-- as it already has.
trade
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization, which the United States joined in 1994, has been disastrous for American sovereignty. A tax bill passed last year provides a vivid example of just how blatantly Congress is surrendering our sovereignty to quasi-governmental bodies like the WTO. For years, high-tax 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. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American law to comply with European rules.
trade
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Americans should expect to see more of the laws we live under being dictated by international bodies. Later this year, all European Union countries will unify their food supplement laws to conform with rules established by a United Nations commission. This commission, called Codex Alimentarius, calls for strict control of dietary supplements. Under the Codex rules, Europeans will need a doctor’s prescription to obtain even basic vitamins. Thanks to the WTO, Americans may find their supplements similarly restricted in an attempt to harmonize the regulatory playing field between the U.S. and Europe. After all, this is the new reality in the WTO era: no nation may enjoy an “unfair” trade or regulatory environment.
trade
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional, which is to say illegal. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. When Congress in essence transfers its authority over trade matters to the WTO, it acts illegally.
trade
Where is Your Money Going?
21 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
-Over $500 million to address the drug trade in Afghanistan, despite clear evidence that the production of opium has grown exponentially since America began pouring billions of tax dollars into that country in 2001;
trade
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 19 ... Cached
My regular listeners already know about another looming threat to dietary supplement freedom. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an offshoot of the United Nations, is working to “harmonize” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. As Europe moves ever closer to adopting Codex standards, it becomes more likely that the World Trade Organization will attempt to force those standards on the United States. This is yet another example of how the WTO threatens American sovereignty. By cooperating with Codex, the FDA is blatantly ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week I had an opportunity to present the case against US membership in the World Trade Organization at a seminar in Washington. Later this summer Congress will have a similar opportunity to raise objections about the WTO when several colleagues and I bring a resolution to the House floor seeking the wholesale withdrawal of the US from the organization.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization by its own admission is not just about trade. According to the WTO website, liberalizing trade actually takes a back seat to its more activist ambitions, such as “development”-- a euphemism for wealth-transfers from rich nations to poor nations. Likewise, their own website promises that, “In the WTO, commercial interests do not take priority over environmental protection.” In 1994 the WTO created the Trade and Environment Committee to bring “environmental and sustainable development issues into the mainstream of WTO work.” What does this mean? It would not take much imagination to tie any environmental issue to trade and thus invite WTO meddling.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming? Clearly the Kyoto Accords, to which the United States has not agreed, will affect world trade. Will this be an open door for the WTO to act as enforcer toward the United States and other countries that refuse to sign Kyoto? Two leading UN observers, Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International and Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, have reported that the WTO is widely recognized as the enforcement tool of choice for the Kyoto treaty.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Even Newt Gingrich, a supporter of American membership in the WTO, recognized in 1994 that far more than trade rules were at stake:
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
In reality, the WTO is the third leg of the globalists’ plan for a one-world, centrally-managed economic system. The intention behind the creation of the WTO was to have a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining two institutions created by Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide. International organizations can never “manage” trade better than it naturally occurs in a true free market of goods and services. At best, WTO acts as a meddling middleman, taking a cut for unnecessary services provided. At worst, it forces the United States to change its domestic laws in ways that seriously harm our economy and our sovereignty.
trade
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Economist Murray Rothbard said it best: You don’t need a treaty to have free trade. Governments and quasi-government bodies like the WTO can only politicize and interfere with the natural flow of goods and services across borders. When we cede even a fraction of our sovereignty to an organization like the WTO, we can hardly hope to become more prosperous or more free.
trade
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week the US Treasury department issued a warning to the Chinese government with regard to its policy of pegging the value of the Chinese yuan to the US dollar. In essence, the Treasury department accuses China of artificially suppressing the value of its currency by tying it to the dollar, thus making Chinese imports very cheap and worsening our trade imbalance.
trade
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Unlike wealthy currency traders, most Americans are stuck with their U.S. dollars. Average people, particularly those who depend on savings or fixed incomes to fund their retirement years, cannot abide the continued devaluation of our currency. A true strong-dollar policy would not depend on the actions of China or any other nation. It would, however, require a constriction of the money supply and higher interest rates, both of which would cause some short-term pain for the American economy. In the long run, however, such a correction is the only alternative to the continued erosion of our dollars.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.
trade
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.
trade
Can the UN Really be Reformed?
20 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever.
trade
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.
trade
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.
trade
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.
trade
The Sausage Factory
01 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 01 August 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
trade
The Sausage Factory
01 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 01 August 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote. Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor. So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to “get tough” on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers. A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China. One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor! So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day. This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil. So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing. Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.
trade
The Sausage Factory
01 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 01 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The president’s press secretary called the CAFTA vote “a real victory for the American people.” The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it. CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se. CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more. Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty. What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.
trade
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
It’s no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. When we consider the enormous entitlement and welfare system in place, and couple that with a military-industrial complex that feeds off perpetual war and encourages an interventionist foreign policy, the possibilities for corruption are endless. We shouldn’t wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade-- and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high priced commodities.
trade
International Taxes?
06 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
trade
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.”
trade
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.
trade
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
trade
Avoiding War with Iran
22 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan-- much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an arch enemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.
trade
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide.
trade
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
trade
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to the largesse of Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US tax dollars into Beijing's coffers.
trade
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
trade
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
trade
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
trade
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
trade
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
trade
The World's Reserve Currency
01 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
trade
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
trade
Globalism
16 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” -- the underlying principle is globalism.
trade
Exposing the True Isolationists
23 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.
trade
Exposing the True Isolationists
23 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.
trade
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 1 ... Cached
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
trade
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.
trade
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.
trade
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba 's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US , and are "awash" with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba , meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.
trade
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!
trade
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.
trade
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.
trade
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
trade
Bombed if you do...
09 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country's economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.
trade
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility
16 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Reducing our entitlement programs here at home is not against saving the children, as the rhetoric goes, it is about saving the country's economy. The fact is we have huge trade imbalances, massive deficits, and a $9 trillion national debt, which balloons to $60 trillion if unfunded future liabilities in social security and other promises we have made to Americans are included.
trade
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
09 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 8 ... Cached
These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided. The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent. The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom. The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets. Perhaps then Africa's leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.
trade
Making a Recession Great
16 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction. While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend over $3 trillion of your money in various ways. While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place. Many so-called "Iraq War critics," criticize this administration rather than truly opposing the decades old policies that led to war. They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home. The American people want peace. Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it. Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved.
trade
On Five Years in Iraq
23 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 9 ... Cached
The sooner we withdraw the better. The invasion and continued US occupation has strengthened both Iran and Al-Qaeda in the region. Continuing down the road of a failed policy will only cost more money we do not have and more lives that should not be sacrificed. Interventionism has produced one disaster after another. It is time we return to a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasizes peaceful trade and travel and no entangling alliances. We can begin by withdrawing from Iraq immediately.
trade
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
Free trade helps farmers and consumers much more than this convoluted system of subsidies, surpluses and central planning. Newly opened markets would create increased demand for what we produce. There is absolutely no reason we trade with China , yet not with Cuba . With energy and transportation prices as high as they are, opening up trade with a country as close as Cuba just makes sense. The recent power shift from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the somewhat positive steps he has taken, provides an opportunity to lift the embargo.
trade
Rising Energy Prices and the Falling Dollar
09 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
Governments need to get out of the way and let the people get back to work so that we can get our economy back on stable footing. Our destructive regulatory environment, confiscatory tax policies, and managed, rather than free trade have chased many businesses overseas. The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work. The important thing now is to get the diagnosis absolutely correct so we can administer the appropriate treatment and move on to a healthier economic future. To do this it is absolutely necessary to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.