Volume 1998 — The Book of Ron Paul

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 1
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy 27 January 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

1998 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it appears the administration is about to bomb Iraq. The stated reason is to force UN inspections of every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. The President’s personal problems may influence this decision, but a flawed foreign policy is behind this effort.

1998 Ron Paul 1:2
Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense.

1998 Ron Paul 1:3
There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of Presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council.

1998 Ron Paul 1:4
But the President is getting little support and a lot of resistance from our allies for this aggressive action.

1998 Ron Paul 1:5
Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein, unify the Islamic Fundamentalists and expose American citizens to terrorist attacks. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit to further stir the hatred and blame toward America for all the approximate he has inflicted on his people.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 2
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

State Of The Republic 28 Juanuary 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

1998 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the first session of the 105th Congress has been completed and the third year of the conservative revolution has passed. Current Congressional leadership has declared victory and is now debating on how to spend the excess revenues about to flow into the Treasury.

1998 Ron Paul 2:2
As the legislative year came to a close, the only serious debate was over the extent of the spending increases negotiated into the budget. The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Control over the Congress is not seriously threatened, and there has been no clear-cut rejection of the 20th century welfare state. But that does not mean that there is no effort to change the direction of the country. It is just that it is not yet in progress.

1998 Ron Paul 2:3
But many taxpayers throughout the country are demanding change, and today there are more people in Washington expressing a sincere desire to shrink the welfare state than there were when I left 13 years ago. The final word on this has not yet been heard.

1998 Ron Paul 2:4
In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and endanger our national security and the republic while perpetuating the status quo.

1998 Ron Paul 2:5
Following are some of the flaws or errors in thinking about issues that I find pervasive throughout the Congress:

1998 Ron Paul 2:6
Foreign affairs. Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny.

1998 Ron Paul 2:7
The economy, crime, the environment, drugs, currency instability, and many other problems are important. But it is in the area of foreign policy and for interventionism that provokes the greatest threat to our liberties and sovereignty. Whenever there are foreign monsters to slay, regardless of their true threat to us, misplaced patriotic zeal is used to force us to look outward and away from domestic problems and the infractions placed on our personal liberties here at home.

1998 Ron Paul 2:8
Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world’s superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military industrial complex and world government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:9
Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e., to kill Hussein; and any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of all places, Kuwait.

1998 Ron Paul 2:10
A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States’ continued military presence in the Middle East.

1998 Ron Paul 2:11
A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.”

1998 Ron Paul 2:12
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.

1998 Ron Paul 2:13
In spite of the reservations and reasons to go slow, the only criticism coming from congressional leaders was that Clinton should do more, quicker, without any serious thought as to the consequences, which would be many.

1998 Ron Paul 2:14
The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations.

1998 Ron Paul 2:15
These days, not even the United States moves without permission from the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the history of U–2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense Department.

1998 Ron Paul 2:16
There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war like Vietnam or small ones with bad results like in Somalia.

1998 Ron Paul 2:17
Individual freedom is always under attack; and once there is any serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to rally around the President, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger and not weaker after the Persian Gulf War.

1998 Ron Paul 2:18
The role of the military industrial complex cannot be ignored; and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever.

1998 Ron Paul 2:19
But there is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign policy is less hidden than it had been in the past. In referring to the United States in the international oil company success in the Caspian Sea, a Houston newspaper recently proclaimed, “U.S. views pipelines as a big foreign policy victory.”

1998 Ron Paul 2:20
This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the pipelines would be cheaper but would not satisfy our international government planners.

1998 Ron Paul 2:21
So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.

1998 Ron Paul 2:22
This attitude, as pervasive as it is in Washington, is tempered by the people’s instincts for minding our own business, not wanting Americans to be the policemen of the world, and deep concern for American sovereignty. The result, not too unusual, is for the politicians in Washington to be doing one thing while saying something else at home.

1998 Ron Paul 2:23
At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found.

1998 Ron Paul 2:24
The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of Bosnia. Yet the President gets all the funding he wants. The Members of Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, the President, the military industrial complex, and the special interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens.

1998 Ron Paul 2:25
Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:26
Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict.

1998 Ron Paul 2:27
In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by power, oil and money.

1998 Ron Paul 2:28
America’s effort to prevent a million casualties in Rwanda does not anywhere compare to our perennial effort to get Hussein. It is hardly violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction that motivates us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul 2:29
We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing.

1998 Ron Paul 2:30
There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction.

1998 Ron Paul 2:31
Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous because the history of the West’s intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists that guarantees that friction will persist in this region no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.

1998 Ron Paul 2:32
As much as I fear and detest oneworld government, this chaos that we contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If the UN’s plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom, and lives.

1998 Ron Paul 2:33
Yes, I fear a biological and even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all factions instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all factions depending on the circumstances.

1998 Ron Paul 2:34
The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.

1998 Ron Paul 2:35
But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 2:37
The balanced budget. There is a naive assumption in Washington that the budget is under control and will soon be balanced, while believing perpetual prosperity is here and new programs can now be seriously considered. It reminds me of an old Chinese saying, when words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 2:38
Even the revolutionaries have claimed victory. One of the staunchest Members recently declared, in the end we achieved a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. Medicare and welfare were reformed, all in three short years, a truly remarkable record on how far we have come.

1998 Ron Paul 2:39
I can understand a positive spin on events of the last three years by party leaders. That is what party leaders do. But the revolutionary members of the 104th Congress should not be taken in easily or quickly. But Washington has a strange way of dulling the senses, and no one enjoys peer rejection or lonely fights, where one is depicted as pursuing a fruitless adventure and appearing negative. Capitulating to the status quo is the road of least resistance, and rationalizations are generously offered up.

1998 Ron Paul 2:40
It has been especially tempting for Members of Congress to accept the projection of higher revenues as a panacea to our budgetary problems. The prevailing attitude in Washington as 1997 came to a close was that the limited government forces had succeeded. The conservative revolution has won, and now it is time to move on and make government work more efficiently.

1998 Ron Paul 2:41
I am sure some know better, but the real reason for these declarations of budgetary success is for the sole purpose of maintaining power. Minority leaders find themselves frustrated because they know spending has gone up, and the higher tax revenues have helped those in charge.

1998 Ron Paul 2:42
The Republican Congress and President Clinton benefited, while the Democratic Congressional leaders could only ask why can’t more be spent on welfare if the country is doing so well? Fundamental problems like the size of the budget, the deficit, the debt, higher taxes, currency problems and excessive regulations were put on the back burner, if not ignored altogether.

1998 Ron Paul 2:43
While complacency regarding foreign policy sets the stage for danger overseas, this naive attitude regarding the budget and the deficit is permitting the welfare state to be reenergized and cancel entirely any efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:44
Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.

1998 Ron Paul 2:45
It is not going to happen. 1997 has proven what many have suspected, that reversing or arresting a welfare state cannot occur by majority vote. With apparent wealth abundance in the United States, the reversal assuredly will not come with ease. Once redistribution of wealth is permitted by the democratic vote, destruction of production will occur before the majority will choose to curtail their own benefits.

1998 Ron Paul 2:46
The end is closer than most realize, considering the optimistic rhetoric coming from Washington, plus the fact the majority of citizens are beneficiaries of the system, and even the producers have grown dependent on government protection, grants, contracts and special subsidies.

1998 Ron Paul 2:47
Although the session ended on a modestly happy bipartisan note, I suspect in time 1997 will be looked upon as a sad year, in that the limited government revolution of 1994 was declared lost by adjournment time in November.

1998 Ron Paul 2:48
That does not mean the fight for liberty is over, but the hope that came by reversing Congressional rule after 40 years has been dampened and a lot more work is necessary for success. The real battle is to win the hearts and minds of Americans outside of Washington to prepare the country for the day when the welfare state ceases to function due to an empty treasury and the dollar, not worth its weight, comes under attack.

1998 Ron Paul 2:49
Specifics worth pondering: The budget for current fiscal year 1998 calls for expenditures of $1.69 trillion, or $89 billion above last year. The 1997 budget was $22 billion over 1996. The so-called balanced budget bragged about is to occur in the year 2002, with more cuts being made in the year 2001 and a level of spending far above today’s. The expenditures in the year 2002 are expected to increase to $1.9 trillion, over $200 billion more than this year.

1998 Ron Paul 2:50
Increased revenues obviously accomplish the job of a theoretically balanced budget, but also these projections do not take into account the huge sums borrowed from Social Security. Even if things go well and as planned, the optimism is based on deception, wishful thinking and a huge raid on the Social Security and other trust funds. In spite of this, the politicians in Washington are eagerly planning on how to spend the coming budgetary surpluses.

1998 Ron Paul 2:51
All these rosy projections are dependent on economic strength, steady low interest rates, and no supplemental appropriations. Every session of Congress gets supplementals, and if the economy takes a downturn, the higher the appropriation.

1998 Ron Paul 2:52
The last three years are not much to brag about. Domestic spending has gone up by $183 billion. In the prior three years, when Democrats controlled the Congress, spending increased by $155 billion. Tax increases are now inevitably referred to as revenue enhancement and closing of loopholes.

1998 Ron Paul 2:53
In spite of some wonderful IRS bashing by nearly everyone and positive hearings in exposing the ruthless tactics of the IRS, Congress and the President saw fit to give the IRS a whopping $729 million increase in its budget, hoping the IRS will become more efficient in their collection procession. Real spending cuts are not seriously considered.

1998 Ron Paul 2:54
Congress continues to obfuscate by calling token cuts in previously proposed increases as budget cuts. The media and the proponents of big government and welfare obediently demagogue this issue by decrying why the slashes in the budget are inhumane and uncaring.

1998 Ron Paul 2:55
Without honesty in language and budgeting, true reforms are impossible. In spite of the rhetoric, bold new educational and medical programs were started, setting the stage for massive new spending in the future. New programs always cost more than originally projected. The block grant approach to reform did not prompt a decrease in spending, and frequently added to it. The principle of whether or not the Federal Government should even be involved in education, medicine, welfare, farming, et cetera, was not seriously considered.

1998 Ron Paul 2:56
The 1998 budget is the largest ever and represents the biggest increase in the domestic budget in eight years. Those in charge threw in the towel and surrendered all efforts this past year to cut back the size of government. In this fiscal year, many concede the deficit will actually go up, even without a slowing in the economy.

1998 Ron Paul 2:57
In this year’s budget, Medicare and Medicaid increased four to five times the rate of inflation. This is not a complete surprise to the logical skeptics when it comes to fiscal matters, but it is just a little exasperating to hear the positive pronouncements of current leaders who just a few years ago would have been only too eager to point out the shortcomings of deceptive arithmetic.

1998 Ron Paul 2:58
Power is a corrupting influence, but, for now, at least, a Congressional power shift is not in the making. There are still a lot of recipients that are happily reassured that additional revenues can be found. The new management is welcomed, and it is hoped the new guys on the block can salvage for a while a system that many deep down in their hearts are convinced is not manageable for much longer.

1998 Ron Paul 2:59
There is a sense of relief the welfare state has received a reprieve. One can almost hear the sigh amplified by hearing of the problems in the Southeast Asia countries with their currency and stock market problems, not realizing it is the U.S. taxpayers and the dollar that will be called upon for the bailout of this financial crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 2:60
The great danger of all of this is the false sense of economic security Congress feels, that has prompted total abandonment of efforts to actually cut any spending and with plans being laid for spending increases.

1998 Ron Paul 2:61
The message is this: The politicians will never limit spending, but, eventually, the market will. It has already done so in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.

1998 Ron Paul 2:62
The international currency crisis: Congress lacks concern and understanding of the significance of the Asian currency crisis. Monetary policy has never excited many Members of the Committee on Banking, let alone other members of Congress. A handful of Members do consistently complain to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but inevitably it is to object to the high interest rates and not enough credit being available to either the poor or the rich beneficiaries of Central Bank credit largesse.

1998 Ron Paul 2:63
The Southeast Asian currency and economic bailout will exceed $100 billion. We will be propping up these currencies by sending American taxpayers’ dollars, the same thing we did in Mexico in 1995. Multilateral efforts through the IMF, World Bank and other development banks are used, and in each one the United States is the most generous donor.

1998 Ron Paul 2:64
IMF bailouts, just as our military foreign intervention, are generally supported by the leadership of both parties. The establishment has firm control in these two areas and who, out of ignorance or neglect, the Congress as a whole provides little resistance. When the stronger currencies, in this case the dollar, props up a weaker currency, it is nothing more than an example of an international transfer of payment that helps our banks and international corporate investors who have financial exposure in the country or currency under attack.

1998 Ron Paul 2:65
These bailouts will work, to some degree, until the dollar itself comes under attack. Our relatively strong economy and the current perceptions of undue dollar strength allows great leverage in this extremely expensive and risky bailout operation.

1998 Ron Paul 2:66
The genius of it all is that Federal Reserve credit expansion and its offbudget budgeting permits these funds to be spent without oversight. IMF appropriations are not even counted toward the deficit, and credit expansion is under complete control of the Federal Reserve.

1998 Ron Paul 2:67
Long-term, the average American citizen suffers through higher interest rates, rising prices, recessions and lower standard of living, but the cause and effect is conveniently hidden from the public and the Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 2:68
After the Mexican bailout, her citizens lost 50 percent of their purchasing power, a dramatic pay cut. Yet the great danger is that some day we will be forced to pay, possibly with a dollar crisis that will make the Asian currency crisis look small in comparison.

1998 Ron Paul 2:69
All currency crises are serious and usher in economic and political problems for the country involved, and since no one likes it, blame is generally misplaced.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 2:71
The day before we adjourned the first session of the 105th Congress, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held hearings on the Asian currency crisis, but it was more an attempt to reassure the financial community than to sort out the cause and do something about it.

1998 Ron Paul 2:72
Instead, the dollar was crowned king, and Greenspan promised stability. Our real interest rates, balance of payments, our current account deficit and budgetary deficits were conveniently ignored, because if they had been looked at seriously, it would have been recognized that the U.S. and the world faces a major financial crisis once the dollar can no longer be used to bail out the world financial system.

1998 Ron Paul 2:73
Currency issues are serious and a much bigger problem than Congress realizes. Even the Fed has convinced itself it is quite capable of managing our fiat currency and our financial markets through any crisis. The money managers are every bit as powerful as the Congress, which taxes and spends, but the Federal Reserve’s actions are much less scrutinized.

1998 Ron Paul 2:74
But when push comes to shove, the markets always win out. Interest rates are less than one percent in Japan, but have not prompted borrowers to come forth nor bankers to lend. The proposed $25 billion injection by the Bank of Japan will not solve the problem either. Even central bankers cannot push on a string.

1998 Ron Paul 2:75
The sad part is that all these shenanigans will cause undue suffering to the innocent who lose their jobs, suffer from price inflation and see their standard of living shrink.

1998 Ron Paul 2:76
Eventually, everyone though is threatened by the political disruption that can ensue with a currency mishap. Our greatest concern should be for our loss of liberties that so often accompany a currency crisis. Congressional attitude toward monetary policy is not likely to change soon, so we can expect a lot more turmoil in the currency markets in the months ahead.

1998 Ron Paul 2:77
Two special areas. Congress in the past year capitulated in two significant areas by not only failing to cut spending, but massively increasing government’s role in medicine and in education. House Republicans bragged that 7 out of 8 educational initiatives passed the House, many of them being quite expensive. Charter schools cost over $100 million, funding for vouchers was increased, $3 billion was appropriated to extend student loans, and a new $210 million reading in excellence program was initiated. A program for high-tech training and one designed to help children with disabilities was also started.

1998 Ron Paul 2:78
Clinton’s new health care program for children was accepted by Congress, which will eventually cost billions and further centralize medical care in Washington, while quality of care is diminished. Billions of dollars increased in NIH, AIDS research and preventative health care were also approved.

1998 Ron Paul 2:79
The Federal Government has been involved in education and medicine more than in any other domestic area. This has caused a serious price inflection for these two services, while undermining the quality and results in both. The more we spend, the higher the cost, the worse the service, and the greater the regulations. So what did Congress do to solve the problems in the past year? Even in this so-called age of cutting back and a balanced budget, it expanded government precisely in the two areas that suffer the most from big government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:80
This is strong evidence that we have not yet learned anything in the past 50 years, and the 1994 revolution has not yet changed things. We can expect more HMO’s and PPO mismanagement, rationing medical service and price control of all medical services. Shortages of quality health care and education will result.

1998 Ron Paul 2:81
Devolution. Block grants are the popular vehicle to restore local control of the Federal bureaucracy. The housing bill, the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding through the block grant system of devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made in the early 1970s under Nixon called revenue-sharing. It did not work and was dropped.

1998 Ron Paul 2:82
This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in Washington or in the State capitols, it will not change the dynamics of public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, cannot replace the benefits of private ownership. Besides, the block grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to the various State entities. Strings will always be attached no matter how many safeguards are written into the law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the Federal Government or even the State governments ought to be involved. The high hopes that this process will alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after many more years of failures and dollars spent.

1998 Ron Paul 2:83
There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If the funding for the pornographic NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government should we expect to be? The devolution approach is not the proponents of big government’s first choice, but it is acceptable to them. Early adjournment meant the call for more spending was satisfied and the supporters of big government, in spite of the rhetoric, were content. Searching for a partisan issue, the minority was content with campaign reform and the questions surrounding illegal voting.

1998 Ron Paul 2:84
Devolution is said to be a return to States rights since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute.

1998 Ron Paul 2:85
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State.

1998 Ron Paul 2:86
Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.

1998 Ron Paul 2:87
After giving a short speech criticizing the inconsistency of our foreign policy, another Member quickly rose to his feet and used the Walter Emerson quote to criticize my efforts saying, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Criticizing another Member for following a consistent freedom philosophy and strict adherence to the Constitution is more of an attempt to reassure the critics themselves who are uneasy with their own position. Obviously, criticizing one for consistency either means that pragmatism and inconsistency is something to be proud of, or there is little respect for the philosophy that is consistently being defended, a truth the critics are not likely to admit.

1998 Ron Paul 2:88
Public relation debates. Oftentimes the big debates in Congress are more public relation efforts than debates on real issues. This is certainly true when it comes to preventing foreign aid funds from being used by any organization for abortions. I agree with and vote for all attempts to curtail the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds for abortion within or outside the United States. But many in the pro-life movement are not interested in just denying all birth control, population control and abortion money to everyone, and avoid the very controversial effort to impose our will on other nations. Believing money allocated to any organization or country is not fungible is naive, to say the least. The biggest problem is that many who are sincerely right to life and believe the Mexico City language restriction on foreign aid will work are also philosophic believers in internationalism, both social and military.

1998 Ron Paul 2:89
The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people.

1998 Ron Paul 2:90
It is conceded by the majority on both sides of this debate that the U.N., the IMF, the development banks and even the funds for population control are legitimate expenditures and eventually will be funded. The question is only whether or not a public relations victory can be achieved by the radical pro-abortion supporters of the President’s or the pro-life supporters.

1998 Ron Paul 2:91
We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction debate moot.

1998 Ron Paul 2:92
Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.

1998 Ron Paul 2:93
The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments.

1998 Ron Paul 2:94
Corporatism. Congress and the administration is greatly influenced by corporate America. We truly have a system of corporatism that if not checked will evolve into a much more threatening form of fascism. Our welfare system provides benefits for the welfare poor and, in return, the recipients vote to perpetuate the entire system. Both parties are quite willing to continue the status quo in not questioning the authority upon which these programs are justified, but the general public is unaware of how powerful corporate America is in changing and influencing legislation. Even those programs said to be specific for the poor, like food stamps, housing, education and medicine, have corporate beneficiaries. These benefits to corporate America are magnified when it is realized that many of the welfare redistributionist programs are so often not successful in helping the poor.

1998 Ron Paul 2:95
But there are many other programs precisely designed to satisfy the special interests of big business. A casual observer that might think the political party that champions the needs of the poor would not be getting political and financial support from the rich. But quite clearly, both parties are very willing to receive financial and political support from special interests representing the rich and the poor, business and labor, domestic and foreign.

1998 Ron Paul 2:96
We should not expect campaign reform are reliable revelations of campaign fund-raising abuse in today’s political climate. There are strong bipartisan reasons to keep the debate on only a superficial level. All the rules in the world will never eliminate the motivation or the ability of the powerful special interests to influence Congress. Loopholes and illegal contributions will plague us for as long as Congress continues with the power to regulate, tax, or detax, or punishes essentially everyone participating in the economy.

1998 Ron Paul 2:97
The most we can ever hope for is to demand full disclosure. Then, if influence is bought, at least it would be in the open. The other most difficult task, and the only thing that will ever dampen special interest control of government, would be to radically reduce the power of Congress over our lives and our economy. Taxpayer funding of campaigns would prove disastrous. The special areas of the budget that

1998 Ron Paul 2:98
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.

1998 Ron Paul 2:99
While crumbs are cast to the poor with programs that promote permanent dependency and impoverishment, the big bucks go to the corporations and the banking elites. The poor welcome the crumbs, not realizing how much long-term harm the programs do as they obediently continue to vote for a corporate-biased welfare state where the rich get richer and the poor get forgotten. Since generally both parties support a different version of interventionism, one should not expect the programs for the rich to be attacked on principle or cut in size. The result of last year’s legislative session should surprise no one.

1998 Ron Paul 2:100
Both types of welfare expenditures benefit from a monetary system that creates credit out of thin air in order to monetize congressional deficits when needed and manipulate interest rates downward to nonmarket levels to serve the interests of big borrowers and lenders. Federal Reserve policy is an essential element in serving the powerful special interests. Monetary mischief of this type will not likely be ended by congressional action, but will be eventually stopped by market forces, just as has recently occurred in the Far East.

1998 Ron Paul 2:101
Voluntary contracts. There is little understanding or desire in Congress to consistently protect voluntary contract. Many of our programs to improve race relations have come from government interference in the voluntary economic contract. Government’s role in a free society should be to enforce contracts, yet too often it does the opposite. All labor laws, affirmative action programs and consumer protection laws are based on the unconstitutional authority of government to regulate voluntary economic contracts. If the same process were applied to the press, it would be correctly condemned as prior restraint and ruled unconstitutional.

1998 Ron Paul 2:102
Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold society and improve personal moral behavior.

1998 Ron Paul 2:103
But these same champions of personal liberty do not hesitate at all to use the same government force they readily condemn in social matters to impose their vision of a fair and equitable economic system on all of us.

1998 Ron Paul 2:104
Thousands of laws and regulations are on the books to assure equality in hiring, pay, and numerous other conditions of employment and for theoretical consumer protection.

1998 Ron Paul 2:105
Ironically, the enemies of the voluntary contract, when dealing with the media and personal associations, are the best defenders of economic liberty and the voluntary economic contract.

1998 Ron Paul 2:106
Unless this glaring inconsistency is reconciled, the republic cannot be salvaged. Too often, the two sides compromise in the wrong direction. Economic libertarians concede too much to the welfare proponents and the social libertarians concede too much to the authoritarians who eagerly try to legislate good behavior. This willingness to compromise, while at the same time criticizing those who have firm beliefs as being overly rigid, serves as a serious threat to the cause of liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 2:107
A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 2:108
Once government loses sight of its true purpose of protecting liberty and embarks on a course where the generous use of force is used to interfere in the voluntary social and economic contracts, liberty will be diminished and the foundation of a true republic undermined.

1998 Ron Paul 2:109
That is where we are today. The effort on both sides to do “good” threatens personal liberty. There is no evidence that laws designed to improve personal sexual habits, the quality of the press or the plight of the poor have helped. The poor, under all programs of forced redistribution of wealth, always become more numerous. And the State inevitably abuses its power when it tries to regulate freedom of expression or improve personal behavior.

1998 Ron Paul 2:110
Too often both sides allow the principle of government force to be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at a great cost and risk to American taxpayers, while accomplishing little except to promote a firm hatred of America for the interference. This itself is a threat to our security. The resulting conditions of international conflict are used as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties of all Americans.

1998 Ron Paul 2:111
In recent years, freedom of the press has been severely challenged when we are actively involved in military operations. Our young people are threatened as they are needlessly exposed to enemy fire and medical experimentation and there is an economic cost through higher taxes.

1998 Ron Paul 2:112
National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.

1998 Ron Paul 2:113
Only with a greater understanding and respect for individual liberty and the importance of voluntary associations in all areas of social and economic life will we be able to preserve our liberty, peace and prosperity. This is required for the republic to survive.

1998 Ron Paul 2:114
Congress reflects the nation’s current obsession with political correctness. The strange irony is that this whole movement has been encouraged by groups and individuals who in the past have been seen as the champions of free expression and civil liberties. These efforts to interfere with freedom of expression come from a desire to punish those in economic superior positions. Political correctness encourages promotions or firings for casual and rude statements once ridiculed by merely ignoring them. The age of victimization demands political correctness be carried to an illogical conclusion and the plan for perfect economic equality demands language that reflect these goals. It’s truly an area that reflects a complete lack of understanding of the principles of liberty and is an understandable result of this century’s division of liberty into two parts. The motive seems to be to make people better by forcing them to use only correct language and to provide special benefits to groups that are economically disadvantaged. It’s not uncommon to hear of people losing their jobs and reputation over harmless comments or telling off-colored jokes. Talk about discrimination, this is the worst.

1998 Ron Paul 2:115
The concept of “hate crimes” is now enmeshed in all legislation. Pretending we can measure motivation and punish it is preposterous. Varying penalties, thus placing more value on one life than another, is a totalitarian idea.

1998 Ron Paul 2:116
The political correctness movement and the concept of hate crimes will lead to laws against “hate speech.” Clearly the constitution is designed to protect protesters, even those who express hatred at times and is not limited to the protection of non-controversial speech. Freedom of expression is indeed under serious attack in this country. Already there are laws in two countries prohibiting even questioning the details of the Holocaust. In America that’s certainly not permitted under the rules of political correctness.

1998 Ron Paul 2:117
Some still believe that “hate crimes” in America are limited to identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. But it’s scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.

1998 Ron Paul 2:118
Whatever happened to the child’s logic of “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?” This basic philosophy offered a logical response to taunts by bullies. Today, the bully is the government which is determined to regulate, enforce, and imprison anyone who doesn’t tow the line of political correctness, multi-culturalism and follow government dictated social and economic rules.

1998 Ron Paul 2:119
But why can’t we consider a solution that incorporates the healthy skepticism of those opposing government mandated V-chips and telephone monitoring devices with those who see the foolishness and danger of political correctness, especially seen when it comes to enforcing crimes against hate speech. Too often the same people who understand the hate crimes issue are the ones that believe government ought to be able to monitor our telephone and computer and censor television programming.

1998 Ron Paul 2:120
This confusion is becoming structural and the longer it’s an accepted principle, the greater the threat to the Republic and our liberties.

1998 Ron Paul 2:121
As long as it is fashionable or humorous to refer to one who consistently defends individual liberty as a “hobgoblin of little minds” our liberties will be threatened. Accepting and rationalizing any inconsistency while rejecting the principal defenders of a free society as impractical represents a danger to the republic. A strict adherence to the Constitution is surely not something that should be encouraged or tolerated, according to these critics.

1998 Ron Paul 2:122
By insisting that all government action be guided by tolerance and compromise in any effort to protect liberty, it is only natural that strict observance to standards in other areas would be abandoned. And it is true, we now live in an age where life has relative value, money has no definition, marriage is undefinable, moral values are taught as relative ethics in our classrooms, good grades in the classroom no longer reflect excellence, success in business is often subjected to doubts because of affirmative action, and corporate profits depend more on good lobbyists in Washington than creative effort.

1998 Ron Paul 2:123
Pragmatism and interventionism are popular because of their convenience and appeal to those who crave governing over others and those who expect unearned benefits. This process can last a long time when some incentives to produce remain in place. But eventually it leads to an attack on the value of money confiscatory taxation, over regulation, excessive borrowing on the future and undermining of trust in the political process. Once this system is entrenched, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to gracefully reverse the process.

1998 Ron Paul 2:124
The usual result is the various groups receiving benefits become highly competitive and bitter toward each other. Eventually, it leads to a time when compromise and government planning no longer look practical nor fair. In the next few years, we can expect this to become more evident as Congress will be forced to acknowledge that the budget has more problems than was admitted to in the closing days of the first session of the 105th Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 2:125
If we do not define the type of government we are striving for and reject interventionism as a doctrine, the endless debate will remain buried in details of form and degree of the current system with no discussion of substance. Merely deciding where to draw the line on government involvement in our lives will consume all the energy of the legislative process. Whether or not we should be involved at all will receive little attention.

1998 Ron Paul 2:126
In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government’s responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with the President as saying, “I tell you, a decent society is not based on rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.”

1998 Ron Paul 2:127
This sounds just a tad authoritarian and closer to the Communist Manifesto than to the Magna Carta or to the Bill of Rights.

1998 Ron Paul 2:128
A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is the only “decent” society and the only one that I care to live in. A free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon which our republic rests.

1998 Ron Paul 2:129
Yet today most of the West, now engulfed by Keynesian welfarism, sadly accepts the Blair philosophy. Duty and responsibility, as Blair sees it, is not the voluntary responsibility found in a free society but rather duty and responsibility to the State. He is right about one thing. If duty to the State is accepted as an uncontested fact, rights are meaningless. And everyday our rights are indeed becoming more threatened.

1998 Ron Paul 2:130
We have come to accept it as immoral and selfish to demand individual rights. Today, rights are too frequently accepted as being collective, such as minority, gay, women, handicapped, poor, or student rights. But rights are only individual. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and property, and it comes naturally or is a God-given gift.

1998 Ron Paul 2:131
The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone’s rights. The whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with the efforts ending in failure.

1998 Ron Paul 2:132
National governments should exist to protect individual liberty at home by enforcing laws against violence and fraud and from outside threats. The bigger and more international government becomes, the more likely it is that the effort will fail.

1998 Ron Paul 2:133
The original challenge to the champions of freedom centuries ago was always to limit the powers of the king. Today the challenge, every bit as great but harder to define, is to limit the power of democratic parliaments and congresses. Democratic elections of leaders is one thing, but obsession with determining all rights by majority vote has now become liberty’s greatest enemy.

1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 2:135
When government’s sole purpose is to protect the lowliest of the minority, the individual, there will be no market for influence buying. Regulating the peddlers of graft will only make things worse for the rules will further undermine the right of the individual to petition and seek his own redress of grievances.

1998 Ron Paul 2:136
Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon which we have embarked.

1998 Ron Paul 2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 2:138
The main motivation behind these mass murders was to maintain political power. Liberty in many ways has become the forgotten cause of the 20th century. Even the mildest mannered welfarist depends on government guns and threats of prison to forcefully extract wealth from producers to transfer it to the politically well-connected. The same government force is used by the powerful rich to promote from the programs designed to benefit them.

1998 Ron Paul 2:139
The budgetary process and the transfer of wealth that occurs through monetary inflation is influenced more by the business and banking elite than by the poor. The $1.7 trillion budget is not an investment in liberty. The kings are gone and I doubt that we will see another Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao, but the “majority” in our legislative bodies now reign supreme with one goal in mind: maintaining power.

1998 Ron Paul 2:140
To do this they must satisfy the power brokers, pretending they are humanitarian saviors while ignoring their responsibility to protect individual liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 2:141
“Democracy” is now the goal of all those who profess progress and peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:142
The question is, where will our alternative come from? Which group or individual truly speaks for liberty and limited government? The speeches, the rhetoric, the campaigns rarely reveal the underlying support most politicians have for expanding the State, especially when coming from those who are thought to be promoting limited government.

1998 Ron Paul 2:143
Those who believe in welfare and socialism are frequently more straightforward. But we are now hearing from some traditional “opponents” of big government, admonishing us to stop “trashing” government. Instead, we should be busy “fixing it.” They do it without once challenging the moral principle that justifies all government intervention in our personal lives and economic transactions.

1998 Ron Paul 2:144
William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government saying, “. . . some of today’s antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you come away with the impression that government has never done anything well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air and water remains clean.”

1998 Ron Paul 2:145
Bennett’s great concern is this. “Disdain of representative government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to instill in citizens a noble love of country” (the State rather than liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country because of their “utter contempt some have directed against government itself.” In other words, we must love our government ruled by the tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom and America.

1998 Ron Paul 2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 3
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq 4 February 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

1998 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Saudis this past week expressed a sincere concern about an anti-American backlash if we start bombing Baghdad. We should not ignore the feelings of the Saudis. If a neighbor can oppose this bombing, we should be very cautious.

1998 Ron Paul 3:2
In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money.

1998 Ron Paul 3:3
And even if we do kill Hussein, what do we do? We create a vacuum, a vacuum that may be filled by Iran. It may be filled by some other groups of Islamic fundamentalists.

1998 Ron Paul 3:4
There is no real benefit to pursuing this. Our own military has said this is like putting on a show. It is political, not a military operation.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 4
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congress Should Move Cautiously On Resolution Regarding Iraq 5 February 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

1998 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, in 1964, a resolution passed this Congress which urged the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

1998 Ron Paul 4:2
Today there is a resolution floating around this Congress that urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We should remember history. We lost 50,000 men after we passed that last resolution. We do not have a sensible policy with Iraq. We should move cautiously.

1998 Ron Paul 4:3
Madam Speaker, I would also urge other Members to be cautious when they talk about a surgical strike and assassination. Assassination of foreign leaders is still illegal under our law.

1998 Ron Paul 4:4
I urge my fellow colleagues, please, be cautious, be careful, and be wise when it comes to giving this President the right to wage war. Ironically, this President did not respond in the same manner with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 5
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Supporting H.R. 2846 5 February 1998

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am not sure we are going to settle that violation question here today. But I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) to try.

1998 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

1998 Ron Paul 5:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule; and I support H.R. 2846, which forbids the use of Federal funds to develop or implement a national test without explicit authorization from Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 5:3
Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the executive branch should support this bill. The administration’s plan to develop and implement a national testing program without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

1998 Ron Paul 5:4
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 5:5
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.

1998 Ron Paul 5:6
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846 which stops the administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the Federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on American parents so they may better provide for the education of their own children.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 6
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Education Test 5 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 2846, which forbids the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National Test without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching by the Executive Branch should support this bill as the Administration’s plan to develop and implement a national education test without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

1998 Ron Paul 6:2
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the United States Government.

1998 Ron Paul 6:3
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children — individual states, local communities, and, primarily, parents.

1998 Ron Paul 6:4
Implementation of a national test also must be opposed because of its primary effect: the de facto creation of a national curriculum. Many supporters of a national testing try to minimize this threat to local and parental sovereignty by claiming the program would be voluntary. However, these are many of the same people who consider Goals 2000 a “voluntary” program, despite the numerous times Goals 2000 uses the terms “shall” and “must” in describing state functions. Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as colleagues and employers inevitably begin to use national tests as the standard by which students are measure for college entrance exams and entry-level jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find federal, and perhaps even state, funding conditioned upon their “voluntary” participation in the national testing program.

1998 Ron Paul 6:5
Educators will react to this pressure to ensure students scored highly on the national test by “teaching to the test” — that is, structuring the curriculum so students learn those subjects, and only those subjects covered by the national tests. As University of Kansas Professor John Poggio remarked in February of last year, “What gets tested is what will be taught.” Government bureaucrats would then control the curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national test!

1998 Ron Paul 6:6
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as performance on the national tests becomes the standard by which student performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face increasing pressure to participate in national testing and shape what is taught to fit the criteria of the tests.

1998 Ron Paul 6:7
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government can control the curriculum of every school in the nation. Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of education.

1998 Ron Paul 6:8
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America’s parents so they may provide for the education of their own children.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 7
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GILCHREST). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

1998 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a few problems I think this country still faces. I want to mention three, but I will talk more about one in particular.

1998 Ron Paul 7:2
Overall, I believe this country faces a serious problem in that our government is too big. When government is big, it means that liberty is threatened. Today, our governments throughout the land consume more than half of what the American people produce. In order to do that, there has to be curtailment on individual liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 7:3
In the attempt to help people in a welfare-warfare state, unfortunately the poor never seem to be helped. A lot of money is spent, but due to the monetary system that we have, inevitably, the middle class tends to get wiped out and the poor get poorer, and very often in the early stages the wealthy get wealthier. In the meantime, the corporations seem to do quite well. So we live in an age where we have a fair amount of corporatism associated with the welfare-warfare state in which we live.

1998 Ron Paul 7:4
The three specific problems that I want to mention, and I mention these because I think this is what the American people are concerned about, and sometimes we here inside the Beltway do not listen carefully to the people around the country. The three issues are these: The first are the scandals that we hear so much about, the second is an IMF bailout, and the third has to do with Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 7:5
Now, the scandals have been around a bit. We have heard about Travelgate and Filegate, and we also heard about interference in foreign policy dealing with foreign donations. Now, those I consider very serious and for this reason I join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) in his resolution to initiate an inquiry into the seriousness of these charges. Some of these charges have been laid aside mainly because there is another scandal in the news, something that has been much more attractive to the media, and that essentially is all that we have been hearing of in the last several weeks. I think this is a distraction from some of the issues that we should deal with. But that is not the one issue that I want to dwell on this evening.

1998 Ron Paul 7:6
The IMF is another issue that I think is very important. This funding will be coming up soon. The Congress will be asked to appropriate $18 billion to bail out the Southeast Asian currencies and countries, and this is a cost; although we are told it does not cost anything, it does not add to the deficit, there is obviously a cost, and we cannot convince the American people that there is no cost just because of our method of budgeting and we do not add it into the deficit.

1998 Ron Paul 7:7
Once again, these funds, whether they go to Southeast Asia or whether they go to Mexico, they never seem to help the little people; they never help the poor people. The poor are poorer than ever in Mexico, and yet the politicians and the corporations and the bankers even in this country get the bailout. This $18 billion is nothing more than another bailout.

1998 Ron Paul 7:8
Now, the third issue is Iraq, and I want to talk more about that, because I am fearful we are about ready to do something very foolish, very foolish for our country, and very dangerous.

1998 Ron Paul 7:9
Of these three issues, there is a common thread. When we think about the scandals, we talk about international finance, a large amount of dollars flowing into this country to influence our elections and possibly play a role in our foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul 7:10
Also, the IMF, which has to do with international finance, the IMF is under the United Nations and therefore it gets a lot of attention and we are asked to appropriate $18 billion.

1998 Ron Paul 7:11
Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned.

1998 Ron Paul 7:12
Just look at what we have been able to do since World War II without a declaration of war. Precisely. Why are we doing this? And precisely because when we do it, what generally happens is that we are not fighting these wars, and they are not police actions, these are wars, and we are not fighting them because of national interests. We are not fighting them for national security, and therefore, we do not fight to win, and subsequently, what war can we really be proud of since World War II? We have not won them. We set the stage for more problems later on. The Persian Gulf War has led to the stalemate that we have here today, and it goes on and on. I think this is a very important subject.

1998 Ron Paul 7:13
War should only be declared for moral reasons. The only moral war is a defensive war and when our country is threatened. Then it is legitimate to come to the people and the people then, through their Members in the House and Senate, and the President then declare war, and then they fight that war to win. But today that is considered very old fashioned, and the consensus here in this Congress is that it will not take much for Congress to pass a resolution.

1998 Ron Paul 7:14
What worries me, though, somewhat is that this resolution will not be circulated among the Members for days and weeks and have real serious debate. There is always the possibility that a resolution like this will come up suddenly. There will be little debate, and then a vote, and an endorsement for this policy. The first resolution that has been discussed over in the Senate had language very, very similar to the same language used in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which endorsed the expansion of the war in Vietnam, where 50,000 men were lost, and it was done not with a declaration of war, but by casual agreement by the Congress to go along.

1998 Ron Paul 7:15
Congress should have and take more responsibility for these actions. It is only the Congress that should pursue an act of war. Bombing is an act of war, especially if it is a country halfway around the world and a country that has not directly threatened our national security.

1998 Ron Paul 7:16
All of the stories about the monstrosities that occur and how terrible the leader might be may have some truth to it, but that does not justify throwing out the rule of law and ignoring our Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 7:17
This effort that is about to be launched, it has not been endorsed by our allies. It is getting very difficult to even get the slightest token endorsement by our allies to start this bombing. One would think if Saddam Hussein was a true threat to that region, his neighbors would be the first ones to be willing to march and to be willing to go to battle to defend themselves. But they are saying, do not even put your troops here, do not launch your effort from our soil, because it is not in our best interests to do so. Kuwait, the country that we went to war over not too long ago has given some token endorsement, but even their newspapers are carrying news stories that really challenge what the people might be saying about this effort.

1998 Ron Paul 7:18
There was a Kuwaiti professor who was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, the U.S. frightens us with ads to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies, thus, ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States continued military presence in the Middle East. That is not my opinion; that is a Kuwaiti professor writing in a government newspaper in Kuwait.

1998 Ron Paul 7:19
A Kuwaiti legislator who was not willing to reveal his name said the use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it. Most people realize that. In the Middle East, Saddam Hussein has more credibility among his Arab neighbors than he did before the war.

1998 Ron Paul 7:20
Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.

1998 Ron Paul 7:21
Now, these are very important comments to be considered, especially when we are getting ready to do something so serious as to condone the bombing of another country. Just recently in The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative newspaper, talked about what Egypt’s opinion was about this. This is interesting, because the interview was done in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum, and the interview was made by Lally Weymouth, and she talked to Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Amre Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, our ally, a country that gets billions of dollars from us every year.

1998 Ron Paul 7:22
So one would expect with all this money flowing into that country that they should quickly do exactly what we want. But this Foreign Minister was rather blunt: Egypt, a key member of the Gulf War coalition, is opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq. He said, We believe that military action should be avoided and there is room for political efforts. He said, If such action is taken, there will be considerable fallout in the Arab world, he warned. He said, We are not afraid of Saddam. He added that his country believes the crisis is a result of allegations that have not been proven. Yet, we are willing to go and do such a thing as to initiate this massive bombing attack on this country, and there has been nothing proven.

1998 Ron Paul 7:23
Moussa also said that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons must be pursued, of course. But this requires cooperation with Iraq, not confrontation. Even our President admits that more weapons have been removed from Iraq since the war ended than which occurred with the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as 88,000 bombs that were dropped in the whole of World War II, and it did not accomplish the mission.

1998 Ron Paul 7:24
So he is suggesting that it is just not worth the effort and it is not going to work. And he, of course, speaks for one of our allies.

1998 Ron Paul 7:25
He says, “The whole Middle East is not comfortable with this, and I do not think there is support for such an option.

1998 Ron Paul 7:26
All of us will face the consequence of such a military attack.” “All of us” means all of them, not the people here in the United States.

1998 Ron Paul 7:27
He said 7 years ago there was an occupation and an apparent aggression. Today it is a question over inspections, so therefore he is arguing strenuously that we not do this. The people in the Middle East, he says, see a double standard. He is talking for the Arabs.

1998 Ron Paul 7:28
The people in the Middle East see a double standard because the Israeli Government does not comply with U.N. Resolution 242, but we see no action. The U.S. is too strong on one and too soft on the other. The peace process is falling apart. We do know that the peace process with Israel and the Palestinians is not going smoothly, yet this is behind some of what is happening because they do not understand our policy.

1998 Ron Paul 7:29
He goes on to say, “There is room for a political solution. Bear in mind the repercussions in the area. If the United States bombs, there will be Iraqi victims.” Then he asks, “What happens if the public sees a decisive move on the part of Iraq but not toward Israel? We have to take into consideration how the people who live near Iraq respond to something like this.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:30
Now, Steven Rosenfeld, in the Washington Post, on February 6, also made comments about the Middle East and the failure of the Mideast policy. And I thought he had a very interesting comment, because he certainly would not be coming at this from the same viewpoint that I have.

1998 Ron Paul 7:31
In his statement, this again is Rosenfeld in the Washington Post, he said, “There is a fatal flaw at the heart of Netanyahu’s policy. He is not prepared to address the Palestinians’ basic grievance. To think that Israel can humiliate the Palestinians politically and then reap the benefits of their security cooperation is foolish. It can’t happen.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:32
Here we are being more involved in the Middle East process with Iraq in the hope that we are going to bring about peace.

1998 Ron Paul 7:33
What about another close ally, an ally that we have had since World War II: Turkey. Turkey is not anxious for doing this. They do not want us to take the bombers and the troops out of Turkey. As a matter of fact, they are hesitant about this. This is an article from the Washington Times by Philip Smucker. He said, “Turkey’s growing fears of a clash in Iraq are based largely on what it sees as the ruinous aftermath of the Gulf War.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:34
So Turkey is claiming that they are still suffering from the Gulf War.

1998 Ron Paul 7:35
“The people,” and this is quoting from the Foreign Ministry Sermet Atacanli, “the people have started thinking that Turkey is somehow being punished,” a senior foreign official said. “We supported the war, but we are losing now.” So they are getting no benefits.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 7:37
We encouraged the Kurds to revolt and then stepped aside, so the Kurds are unhappy with the Americans because they were disillusioned as to what they thought they were supposed to be doing. “Turkey’s clear preference is for Iraq to regain control of its own Kurdish regions on the Turkish border and resume normal relations with Ankara.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:38
Further quoting the foreign ministry of Turkey, “Iraq cannot exercise sovereignty over these regions, so there has become a power vacuum that has created an atmosphere in which terrorists operate freely.” It has taken quite some effort for Turkish forces to deal with this problem.

1998 Ron Paul 7:39
What will happen if the bombs are relatively successful? More vacuum. More confusion. And more turmoil in that region.

1998 Ron Paul 7:40
The military goals are questioned by even the best of our military people in this country, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what our military goals are. We do not have the troops there to invade and to take over Baghdad or to get rid of Hussein, but we have a lot of bombs and we have a lot of firepower. Yet, we are supposed to be intimidated and fearful of this military strength of Saddam Hussein. Yet even by our own intelligence reports, his strength is about one-half what it was before the Persian Gulf War started. So there is a little bit more fear-mongering there than I think is justified.

1998 Ron Paul 7:41
But if we do not plan to send troops, we just agree to send bombs, then it will not get rid of Hussein. Why are we doing this? Because some people question this and some people respond and say, that may be correct, maybe we do not have the ability to inflict enough damage or to kill Hussein. And some here have even suggested that we assassinate him.

1998 Ron Paul 7:42
Well, I am not going to defend Iraq. I am not going to defend Hussein. But I do have a responsibility here for us in the Congress to obey the law, and under our law, under the Constitution, and with a sense of morality, we do not go around assassinating dictators. I think history shows that we were involved in that in South Vietnam and it did not help us one bit.

1998 Ron Paul 7:43
Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region.

1998 Ron Paul 7:44
It is conceivable to me that it would be to Hussein’s benefit, and he probably is not worried that much, but I do not believe it is in our interest. I do not believe it is in the interest of the American people, the American taxpayers, the American fighter pilots, and certainly long-term interest in the Middle East. We will spend a lot of money doing it. That is one issue.

1998 Ron Paul 7:45
We could end up having lives lost. We still have not solved all the problems and taken care of all the victims of the Persian Gulf War syndrome which numbers in the tens of thousands. Maybe we should be talking about that more than looking for more problems and a greater chance for a serious confrontation where lives were lost.

1998 Ron Paul 7:46
The Iraqi and the Syrian views, according to this article, are very close and almost identical in rejecting a resort to force and American military threats. We do not get support there, and we should not ignore that.

1998 Ron Paul 7:47
Just recently Schwarzkopf was interviewed on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press,” and he had some interesting comments to make, very objective, very militaryoriented comments. He would not agree with me on my policy or the policy that I would advocate of neutrality and nonintervention and the pro-American policy. But he did have some warnings about the military operation.

1998 Ron Paul 7:48
He said, “I do not think the bombing, I don’t think it will change his behavior at all. Saddam’s goal is to go down in history as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar by uniting the Arab world against the west. He may not mind a big strike if, after it, the United Nations lifts economic sanctions against Iraq.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:49
I am afraid that this policy is going in the wrong direction, that we are going to have ramifications of it for years to come, and that we will and could have the same type of result as we had in Vietnam that took a decade for us to overcome.

1998 Ron Paul 7:50
Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this bombing will accomplish what we should do. Charles Duefler, deputy chief of the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi inspection said, “Put bluntly, we do not really know what Iraq has.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:51
That is at the heart of the problem. Here is our U.N. inspector admitting that they have no idea. So how can we prove that somebody does not have something if we do not know what he is supposed to have? So the odds of this military operation accomplishing very much are essentially slim to none.

1998 Ron Paul 7:52
Charles Krauthammer, who would be probably in favor of doing a lot more than I would do, had some advice. He said, “Another short bombing campaign would simply send yet another message of American irresolution. It would arouse Arab complaints about American arrogance and aggression while doing nothing to decrease Saddam’s grip on power. Better to do nothing,” Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. These are not my views. They are warnings that we should not ignore.

1998 Ron Paul 7:53
Richard Cohen from the Washington Post had some advice. He said, “Still military action is a perilous course. It will produce what is called ‘collateral damage,’ a fancy term for the accidental killing of civilians and possibly the unintentional destruction of a school or mosque.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:54
We have heard of that before. “That, in turn,” he goes on to say, “will provoke protests in parts of the Arab world, Jordan probably and Egypt as well. In both countries the United States is already considered the protector of a recalcitrant Israeli Government. As for Israel itself, it can expect that Iraq will send missiles its way armed with chemical or biological weapons.”

1998 Ron Paul 7:55
This is Richard Cohen warning us about some of the ramifications of what might happen.

1998 Ron Paul 7:56
But during these past 8 years since the war has ended, there has been no signs that that is likely to happen. It is more likely to happen that some missile or some accident will occur that will spread this war from a neat little war to something much bigger than we are interested in dealing with.

1998 Ron Paul 7:57
There are several other points that I would like to mention here. The one thing we cannot measure and we cannot anticipate are the accidents that happen. So often wars are caused by people being in the wrong place at wrong time, and then accidents happen and somebody gets killed, a ship is sunk, and we have to go to war.

1998 Ron Paul 7:58
Other times some of these events may be staged. One individual suggested the possibility of a person like Saddam Hussein actually acting irrationally and doing something radical to his own people and then turning around and blaming the United States or Israel or something like that. So we are dealing with an individual that may well do this and for his specific purposes.

1998 Ron Paul 7:59
But we would all be better off, not so much that we can anticipate exactly who we should help and who we should support; we have done too much of that. We help too often both sides of every war that has existed in the last 50 years, and we have pretended that we have known what is best for everybody. I think that is impossible.

1998 Ron Paul 7:60
I think the responsibility of the Members of Congress here is to protect the national interest, to provide national security, to take care of national defense, to follow the rules that say, we should not go to war unless the war is declared. If we go to war, we go to war to fight and win the war. But we do not go to war because we like one country over another country and we want to support them.

1998 Ron Paul 7:61
We literally support both sides in the Middle East, and it is a balancing act and, quite frankly, both sides right now seem to be a little bit unhappy with us. So the policy has not been working; we have not been able to achieve what we think we are able to do. But we must be very cautious on what we are doing here in the next few weeks.

1998 Ron Paul 7:62
People say, well, we have to do it because Hussein has so much of this firepower, he has all of these weapons of mass destruction. It was just recently reported by U.S. intelligence that there are 20 nations now who are working on and producing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran and Syria. So why do we not go in there and check them out too?

1998 Ron Paul 7:63
Why is it that we have no more concern about our national security concern about China? I think China can pose a national threat. I do not think we should be doing it to China. I do not think we should be looking to find out what kind of weapons they have. We know they sell weapons to Iraq. And we know they are a very capable nation when it comes to military. But what do we do with China? We give them foreign aid. They are one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the whole world.

1998 Ron Paul 7:64
So we do not apply the rules to all the countries the same, and we get narrowed in on one item and we get distracted from many of the facts that I think are so important. Some people believe that it is conceivable that the oil is even very important in this issue as well.

1998 Ron Paul 7:65
We obviously knew the oil was important in the Persian Gulf War because it was said that we were going over there to protect our oil. Of course, it was Iraqi oil but some people believe sincerely that keeping this Iraqi oil off the market helps keep the prices higher and they do not need that to happen.

1998 Ron Paul 7:66
As a matter of fact, it was in the Wall Street Journal today that that was further suggested. It said: Equally important the U.S. must terminate illegal oil exports from the Iraqi port of Basra.

1998 Ron Paul 7:67
There, submerged barges depart daily for Iran, which sells the oil and, after a hefty rake-off, returns the proceeds to fund Saddam. So there are sales and there might be people that are looking at this mainly as a financial thing dealing with oil.

1998 Ron Paul 7:68
The odds now of us being able to stop this bombing I think are pretty slim. I think that is rather sad because it looks like there will be a resolution that will come to the floor. There probably will not be a chance for a lot of debate. It will come up under suspension possibly and yet in the words may be toned down a little bit.

1998 Ron Paul 7:69
It might not be identical to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. But all I would like to do is point out to my colleagues that this is more important than it appears, and we should not be so glib as to give this authority, to give the cover for the President to say, well, the Congress said it was okay. I do not think the Congress should say it is okay, because I think it is the wrong thing to do. And I think it could lead to so many, so many more problems.

1998 Ron Paul 7:70
So we have a responsibility. If the responsibility is that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national security, we should be more honest with the American people. We should tell them what the problem is. We should have a resolution, a declaration of war.

1998 Ron Paul 7:71
Obviously, that would not pass but it looks like it will not be difficult to pass a resolution that will condone and give sanction to whatever the President does regardless of all the military arguments against it.

1998 Ron Paul 7:72
So I see this as really a sad time for us and not one that we should be proud of. I do know that the two weakest arguments I can present here would be that of a moral argument, that wars ought to be fought only for defense and for national security. I have been told that is too old-fashioned and we must police the world, and we have the obligation. We are the only superpower.

1998 Ron Paul 7:73
Well, I do not think that is a legitimate argument. I do have a lot of reservation that we are so anxious to go along with getting authority elsewhere, and that is through the United Nations. When the Persian Gulf War was started, getting ready to start, it was said that we did not need the Congress to approve this because the authority came from the United Nations resolution.

1998 Ron Paul 7:74
Well, that to me is the wrong way to go. If we are involved in internationalism, where international financing now is influencing our presidential election, if international finances demand that we take more money from the American taxpayers and bail out southeast Asian countries through the IMF and that we are willing to have our young men and women be exposed to war conditions and to allow them to go to war mainly under a U.N. resolution and a token endorsement by the Congress, I think this is the wrong way to go.

1998 Ron Paul 7:75
I do realize that we have been doing it this way for 40 or 50 years. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the American people are all that happy about it. I have not yet had anybody in my district come up to me and start saying, RON, I want you to get up there and start voting. I want to see those bombs flying.

1998 Ron Paul 7:76
As a matter of fact, I have had a lot of them come and say, why are you guys up there thinking about going to war? I have had a lot of people talk about that. So we should not do this carelessly and casually.

1998 Ron Paul 7:77
There is no reason in the world why we cannot be willing to look at the rule of law. The rule of law is very clear. We do not have the moral authority to do this. This is, we must recognize, this is an act of war.

1998 Ron Paul 7:78
When the resolution comes up to the floor, no matter how watered down it is, I think everybody should think very seriously about it and not be careless about it, not wait until a decade goes by and 50,000 men are killed. I think that is the wrong way to do it.

1998 Ron Paul 7:79
There is nothing wrong with a pro- American foreign policy, one of nonintervention, one where we are neutral. That was our tradition for more than 100 years. It stood out in George Washington’s farewell address, talk about nonentangling alliances. These entangling alliances and our willingness to get involved has not been kind to us in the 20th century. So we should really consider the option of a foreign policy that means that we should be friends with all.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 7:81
We do not have to be the policemen of the world. We have not done a good job and the world is not safer today because of our willingness to do this. One act leads to the next one. We are still fighting the Persian Gulf War, and it sounds to me like we are losing our allies. We must take this under serious advisement. We must not be too anxious to go and do something that we could be very sorry for.

1998 Ron Paul 7:82
I know that people do not like this statement I am going to be making to be made, but I think there should be a consideration for it. So often Members here are quite willing to vote to put ourselves and our men in harm’s way that could lead to a serious confrontation with many deaths. But if those individuals who claim that it would be best to assassinate Saddam Hussein or put land troops on there, I wonder if they would be willing to be the first ones on the beachhead. That really is the question. That is a fair statement.

1998 Ron Paul 7:83
If you are willing to go yourself, if you are willing to send your child, then it is more legitimate to vote casually and carelessly to go marching off with acts of war. But if that individual who is getting ready to vote, if he himself or she herself is not willing to land on that beach and risk their lives, they should think a second time.

1998 Ron Paul 7:84
In a war for national defense, if this country is threatened, every one of us should participate in it. We should and we can. We could do it our way, to participate in the defense of this country. But once it is being involved in a casual and a careless manner with not knowing what the goals are, not knowing what victory means, not fighting to win, this can only lead to bigger problems.

1998 Ron Paul 7:85
This is the time to reassess it. I know time is running short. Everybody is afraid of losing face. Some people say, well, how do we back off and we cannot let Saddam Hussein lose face, and what about our own politicians who have been saying that we must do something. They will lose face. Would that not be the worst reason in the world to do this, because they are afraid of losing face because we threatened them? If it is the wrong thing to do, we should not do it. And there seems to me to be no direct benefit to the American people, certainly no benefit to the American taxpayer, certainly no benefit to peace in the Middle East. It is more likely to cause more turmoil. It is more likely to unify the Islamic fundamentalists like they have never been unified before.

1998 Ron Paul 7:86
So what we are doing here is very serious business. Unfortunately, it looks like it is going to happen and it looks like there will be one or two or three or four of us that will say, go slow, do not do this, let us question this. But unfortunately, the only significant criticism we have had of the policy has been, do more faster.

1998 Ron Paul 7:87
We do not need to do more faster. We need to do less quicker, much less quicker. Nothing has been happening in the last few years, the last few weeks. Does President Clinton need to bomb over the weekend or next week or two weeks from now? I say absolutely not. There is no need for this.

1998 Ron Paul 7:88
Saddam is weaker than he used to be. He could be stronger after this is finished. So we must be cautious. We must take our time and think about this before we go off and make this declaration. It sounds like a lot of fun. We have a lot of bombers. We have a lot of equipment that we have to test, and we can go over there and see if the B–1 and the stealth bombers will work a little bit better than they have in the past. But this is not a game. This is not a game. This is serious business.

1998 Ron Paul 7:89
One item like this, one event like this can lead to something else, and that is what we have to be cautious about. We cannot assume that, yes, we can bomb for a day or two or three or four and the stronger the rhetoric the more damage we are going to do. We need less rhetoric. We as a Nation have on occasion been the initiators of peace talks. We encourage the two groups in the Middle East, the Israelis and the Palestinians. We bring them to our country. We ask them to sit down and talk. Please talk before you kill each other. We go to the Protestants and we go to the Catholics and we say, please talk, do not kill each other. Why do we not talk more to Hussein? He is willing to.

1998 Ron Paul 7:90
I know, I mean you have to take his word with a grain of salt, but would it not be better to sit down across the table and at least talk rather than pursue a course that, a military course that may be more harmful?

1998 Ron Paul 7:91
If this would be a guarantee that it would get a lot better and that we would solve a lot of problems, maybe we could consider it. But even those who advocate this do not claim they know when the end stage is, what the ultimate goal is, and that they would expect success. They are not expecting this. They just want to bomb, bomb people. Innocent people will die. Those pictures will be on television.

1998 Ron Paul 7:92
And I, quite frankly, do not believe the polls that most Americans want us to do this. I go home; I talk to a lot of my constituents. I do not find them coming and saying, do this. They do not even understand, the people who come and talk to me, they ask me what is going on up there. Why are they getting ready to do this?

1998 Ron Paul 7:93
I mean, most people in this country cannot even find where Iraq is on the map. I mean, they are not that concerned about it. And yet all we would have to do is have one ship go down and have loss of life and then all of a sudden, then do we turn tail? Then is it that we do not lose face after we lose 1,000 men by some accident or some freakish thing happening?

1998 Ron Paul 7:94
Sure, we will lose more face then. But we can save face if we do what is right, explain what we are doing and be open to negotiations. There is nothing wrong with that. I mean, there has not been a border crossing.

1998 Ron Paul 7:95
The other thing is it would be nice if we had a policy in this country, a foreign policy that had a little bit of consistency. I have been made fun of at one time on the House floor for being consistent and wanting to be consistent.

1998 Ron Paul 7:96
I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with being consistent. I think there should be a challenge on my ideas or our ideas. We should challenge ideas. But if you want to be consistent, if they are the right ideas, you should be consistent. But we talk about this horrible country, I am not defending the country and I am not defending Hussein, but we criticize him as an individual who invaded another country. I wonder what they are talking about.

1998 Ron Paul 7:97
I wonder if they are talking about when he invaded Iran with our encouragement and our money and our support. Is that what they are talking about? Or are they talking about the other invasion that we did not like because it was a threat to western oil? I think that might be the case.

1998 Ron Paul 7:98
So they talk about poison gas. Yes, there is no doubt about it. I think the evidence is out that he has used poison gas against his own people. Horrible, killed a lot of people. But never against another country, which means the line could be drawn by if he had ever used these weapons. We cannot investigate 20 countries. We cannot investigate North Korea. We cannot investigate China. Why do we have this obsession with investigating this country? But poison gases, under international agreements, we are not supposed to use poison gases.

1998 Ron Paul 7:99
Poison gases, we used them, not against a foreign power but we used them against our own people. No, we did not have a mass killing but those families understood it. Over 100, more than 100, 150 people were gassed with gas that was illegal, according to our own agreements, and we used them at Waco.

1998 Ron Paul 7:100
So at one time we were an ally of a country, at the same time he is using poison gas and invading another country and then, when he invades the wrong country, then we give him trouble.

1998 Ron Paul 7:101
For many, many years, Noriega was our ally, and he was no angel when he was our ally. He received money from the CIA, but all of a sudden he wanted to be his own drug lord. He did not want to be beholding to our CIA, so we had to do something about him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 7:106
This whole approach of militancy, believing that we can force our way on other people, will not and cannot work. Matter of fact, the few quotes that I used here earlier are indicating that we are doing precisely the wrong thing; that we are further antagonizing not only our so-called enemies, but we are further antagonizing our allies. So if there is no uniformity of opinion of the neighbors, of Iraq, that we should be doing this, if we will not listen to the moral, if we will not listen to the constitutional issue, we should listen to the practical issue. His neighbors do not want us to do it.

1998 Ron Paul 7:107
And what are we going to prove? We should not do it. We should reassess this. We should decide quietly and calmly and deliberately in this body that quite possibly the move toward internationalism, abiding by the U.N. resolutions, paying through the nose to the IMF to bail out the special interests, never helping the poor but always helping the rich, encouraging a system that encourages foreign countries to come in and buy influence, should be challenged. We should change it.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 7:109
The world is a rough enough place already, and there will continue to be the hot spots of the world, but I am totally convinced that a policy of American intervention overseas, subjecting other nations to our will, trying to be friends to both sides at all times, subsidizing both sides and then trying this balancing act that never works, this is not going to work either. It did not work in the 1980s when we were closely allied\ and subsidizing Hussein and it will not work now when we are trying to bomb him.

1998 Ron Paul 7:110
Neither will it work for us to not have somewhat of a consistent policy to ignore the other countries that are doing the very same thing at the same time the real threat possibly could be a country like China. And what do we do? We give them billions and billions of dollars of subsidies.

1998 Ron Paul 7:111
There is nothing wrong with a consistent defense of a pro-America foreign policy. People will say, well, the world is different and we have to be involved. That is exactly the reason that we ought to be less aggressive. That is exactly the reason why we ought to take our own counsel and not do these things. Because we live in an age where communications are much more rapid. The weapons are much worse. There is every reason in the world to do less of this, not more of it.

1998 Ron Paul 7:112
But none of this could happen. We could never move in this direction unless we asked a simple question: What really is the role of our government? Is the role of our government to perpetuate a welfare-warfare state to take care of the large special interests who benefit from this by building weapons and buying and selling oil? No, the purpose cannot be that.

1998 Ron Paul 7:113
The welfare-warfare state does not work. The welfare for poor is well-motivated; it is intended to help people, but it never helps them. They become an impoverished, dependent class. And we are on the verge of bankruptcy, no matter what we hear about the balanced budget. The national debt is going up by nearly $200 billion a year and it cannot be sustained. So this whole nonsense of a balanced budget and trying to figure out where to spend the excess is nonsense. It just encourages people to take over more of the responsibilities that should be with the American people.

1998 Ron Paul 7:114
We here in the Congress should be talking about defending this country, providing national security, providing for a strong currency, not deliberately distorting the currency. We should be protecting private property rights and making sure that there is no incentive for the special interests of this country to come and buy their influence up here.

1998 Ron Paul 7:115
We do not need any fancy campaign reform laws. There is no need for those. We need to eliminate the ability of the Congress to pass out favors. I do not get any PAC money because there is no attempt to come and ask me to do special favors for anybody. I get a lot of donations from people who want liberty. They want to be left alone, and they know, they know that they can take care of themselves.

1998 Ron Paul 7:116
Now, this point will not be proven until the welfare state crumbles, and it may well crumble in the next decade. The Soviet system crumbled rather suddenly. We cannot afford to continue to do this, but we must be cautious not to allow the corporate state and the militant attitude that we have with our policy to rule. We have to decide here in this country, as well as in this body, what we want from our government and what kind of a government we want.

1998 Ron Paul 7:117
We got off from the right track with the founders of this country. They wrote a good document and that document was designed for this purpose, for the protection of liberty. We have gone a long way from that, until now we have the nanny state that we cannot even plow our gardens without umpteen number of permits from the Federal Government. So our government is too big, it is too massive, and we have undermined the very concept of liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 7:118
Foreign policy is very important because it is under the conditions of war; it is under the condition of foreign confrontation that people are so willing to give up their liberties at home because of the fear. We should avoid unnecessary confrontations overseas and we should concentrate on bettering the people here in this country, and it can best be done by guaranteeing property rights, free markets, sound money, and a sensible approach to our foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 8
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Motion To Adjourn 11 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o’clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 10 a.m.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 9
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Iraq 12 February 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

1998 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapons technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq?

1998 Ron Paul 9:2
Instead, though, we give foreign aid to both China and to Russia, so indirectly we are subsidizing the very weapons that we are trying to eliminate.

1998 Ron Paul 9:3
I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.

1998 Ron Paul 9:4
Bombing will solve nothing. It will open up a can of worms. We should not condone it. We should not endorse it. We should not encourage it.

1998 Ron Paul 9:5
Please think carefully before we permit our President to pursue this war adventure.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 10
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Voter Eligibility Verification Act 12 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national identification number by which the federal government can more easily monitor private information regarding American citizens.

1998 Ron Paul 10:2
The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official.

1998 Ron Paul 10:3
Now Congress is preparing to authorize the use of the Social Security number to verify citizenship for purposes of voting. Opponents of this bill are right to point out that, whatever protections are written in this bill, allowing states to force citizens to present a Social Security number before they can vote will require the augmentation of a national data base — similar to those created in the Welfare Reform and the Immigration Bills of 1996.

1998 Ron Paul 10:4
Mr. Speaker, clearly we are heading for the day when American citizens cannot work, go to school, have a child, or even exercise their right to vote without presenting what, in effect, is quickly becoming a national I.D. card.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 10:6
In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 11
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq 12 February 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to just urge some caution on what we do.

1998 Ron Paul 11:2
I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually.

1998 Ron Paul 11:3
Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.

1998 Ron Paul 11:4
We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war continues.

1998 Ron Paul 11:5
It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that.

1998 Ron Paul 11:6
Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable under our system of law, and I call my colleagues’ attention to this because this is very serious.

1998 Ron Paul 11:7
I do not care more about military than those who would bomb; they have just as much concern as I have. But I am concerned about the rule of law, and obviously, I am concerned about consequences that are unforeseen, and there could be many.

1998 Ron Paul 11:8
I am worried that we do not have allied support, and everybody recognizes that now. There are very few neighbors of Saddam Hussein who are very anxious for us to do this. So that should cause some reservation.

1998 Ron Paul 11:9
Also the military strategy here is questionable. It is actually what are we going to try to achieve? Are we going to try to literally destroy all the weapons, or are we going to try to destroy him? Are we just going to bomb people where maybe innocent people will be killed? The long-term military strategy has not been spelled out, and I have a concern for that.

1998 Ron Paul 11:10
Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. Government and the British Government participated and they have the documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what we do.

1998 Ron Paul 11:11
Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary.

1998 Ron Paul 11:12
The other side of the aisle suggests that we have a full debate and a resolution in 10 days after we come back. That certainly makes a lot of sense to me. I think at this point to condone and endorse and encourage the President to do something at this late hour when there is essentially no one here in the Chamber, I do not think this is a good way to casually step into something that could be rather dangerous. The resolutions that have been talked about ironically are quite similar to the resolution passed in the 1960s that got us further involved in Vietnam.

1998 Ron Paul 11:13
So, in all sincerity, I come here asking all Members to be cautious and for the President not to move too hastily.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 12
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

We Encouraged Saddam Hussein 12 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

1998 Ron Paul 12:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to make two points. The other gentleman from California makes a good point about the character of Saddam Hussein, but my colleagues have to remember and have to realize that he was a close ally that we encouraged for 8 years during the 1980s, so we helped build him up, which contradicts this whole policy. I would like to see a more consistent policy.

1998 Ron Paul 12:3
Then the gentleman brings up the subject: Yes, he may be in the business of developing weapons, but he has gotten help from China and Russia, and possibly from Britain and the United States, and 20 other nations are doing the same thing. So if we are interested in stopping these weapons, we better attack 20 countries. So we have a job on our hands.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 13
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Millennium Bug 24 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this Legislation, H.R. 3116, will not solve the Year 2000 problem. Giving some financial regulators “statutory parity” with other regulators will not solve the problem. Everyone will have to take responsibility to secure that their own systems will be Year 2000-compliant. We must hope that the government will be as diligent in its compliance with the so-called Millennium Bug problem as it want the private sector to be.

1998 Ron Paul 13:2
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported unfavorably on the FDIC’s readiness. Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, US Senate, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems, testified on February 10, 1998 (Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank’s Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant) that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has not met its own “y2k-compliant” standards. According to GAO, the FDIC has not yet completed the assessment phase of the remediation process, despite its own standard that banks under the agency’s supervision should have completed this phase by the end of the third quarter of 1997.

1998 Ron Paul 13:3
The bill requires the regulators to provide information (seminars, etc.), make available to financial institutions model approaches to address the Year 2000 problem, and to give the regulators examination authority to examine third party service provides under contract to federally-insured institutions.

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?”

1998 Ron Paul 13:5
Ellen Seidman, Director OTS, added, “Clearly, the primary responsibility and liability for Year 2000 compliance rests with the regulated institutions themselves, including those that rely on service providers . . . Some service providers, however, have been resistant to these contractual provisions and, as a result, thrifts have been hindered in their ability to contract for services.”

1998 Ron Paul 13:6
This bill raises legal liability questions that may actually thwart a financial institution’s ability to address the y2k problem more effectively. Introducing legislation on the y2k issue would only give more people more incentive to sue companies which are not compliant. How does the bill define “year 2000 compliance”? It isn’t clear. Such ambiguity only causes further problems. The real problem with y2k isn’t the computers, its the people. More legislation will only compound the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 13:7
Year 2000 issues with computers cause numerous headaches but by no means unsolvable problems. Solutions exist, and since we do exist in a relatively free market, we should allow it to work.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 14
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Federal Gun Control 24 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states.

1998 Ron Paul 14:2
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.

1998 Ron Paul 14:3
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.

1998 Ron Paul 14:4
For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government’s attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 15
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Folly Of Foreign Intervention 25 February 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 50 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

1998 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had a chance to pick a topic for my special order today, I would call it the folly of foreign intervention.

1998 Ron Paul 15:2
We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 15:3
This, I think, is beneficial. At least it gives both sides more time to stop and think and talk before more bombs are dropped.

1998 Ron Paul 15:4
Before we left about 10 days ago from the Congress, I think many Members and much of the Nation thought that within a short period of time, within a week or so, there would be additional bombing by the Americans over Baghdad.

1998 Ron Paul 15:5
There were polls out at that time that said 70 percent of the American people endorsed this move, something that I questioned and of course I question the legitimacy of dealing with policy by measuring polls, anyway. I think we should do what is right, not try to decide what is right by the polls. But in this circumstance, I think the polls must have been very, very misleading.

1998 Ron Paul 15:6
We heard a gentleman earlier this evening from North Dakota mention when he was at home essentially nobody was telling him that they were in favor of the war. I think most Members of Congress on this past week on visiting home had the same message. Certainly there was a very loud message in Columbus at a town hall meeting. It was written off by those who wanted to go to war and wanted to drop the bombs by saying, well, no, this was just a very noisy bunch of hippies who are opposed to the war. There are a lot of people in this country who are opposed to the war and they are not hippies. I think to discredit people who oppose going and participating in an act of war and try to discredit them by saying that they belong to a hippie generation, I think they are going to lose out in the credibility argument in this regards.

1998 Ron Paul 15:7
This debate has been going on for quite a few months. It looks like it is not resolved. Although there has been an agreement, it is far from a victory for either side. It is somewhat ironic about how this has come about, because it seems that those of us who have been urging great caution have been satisfied with at least a temporary solution, yet we are not entirely satisfied at all with the dependency on the effort by the United States enforcing U.N. resolutions. In this case I think what we must do is reassess the entire policy because it is policy that gets us into trouble.

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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 15:10
So all of a sudden it is hard to understand why our policy changes. But once we embark on a policy of intervention and it is arbitrary, we intervene when we please or when it seems to help, it seems then that we can be on either side of any issue anytime, and so often we are on both sides of many wars. This does not serve us well. A policy design that is said to be pro-American and in defense of this country where we follow the rules and follow the laws and we do not get involved in war without a declaration by the Congress, I think it would be very healthy not only for us as Americans but it would be very healthy for the world as a whole.

1998 Ron Paul 15:11
I am very pleased that there has been at least a pause here, although our troops will be maintained there and they are waiting to see if there is some other excuse that we can go in there and resume the bombing. But the whole notion that we are going to bring Hussein to his knees without the cost of many American lives I think is naive, because nobody has proposed that we go in and invade the country. There have been proposals that we just assassinate Hussein, which is illegal. At least that is acknowledged that this is an illegal act, to go in and kill another leader, although we have been involved in that too. But many people have argued that this should be our policy now, and that is to topple Hussein.

1998 Ron Paul 15:12
But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul 15:13
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN).

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 16
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

What Did Congressman Duncan’s Constituents Want 25 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. He was just home in his district, he traveled and talked to quite a few of his constituents. Did he get a sentiment from his district on what they want?

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 17
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2 25 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us.

1998 Ron Paul 17:2
I have always lamented the fact that we so often are anxious to close down our bases here within the United States because we are always looking for the next monster to slay outside of the country, so we build air bases in places like Saudi Arabia. Then when the time comes that our leaders think that it is necessary to pursue a war policy in the region, they do not even allow us to use the bases. I think that is so often money down the drain. It is estimated now that we have probably pumped in $7 billion into Bosnia and that is continuing. Our President is saying now that that is open-ended, there is no date to bring those troops back. We have already spent probably a half a billion additional dollars these last several weeks just beefing up the troops in the Persian Gulf.

1998 Ron Paul 17:3
The funds will not be endless. I have too many calls from so many in my district who serve in the military, and their complaint is that they do not have enough funds to adequately train. We are wasting money in the wrong places, getting ourselves into more trouble than we need to. At the same time we detract from spending the money where we should in training our personnel the way they should be. I think this is not so much a tactical decision made by management as much as it is a policy decision on what our foreign policy ought to be.

1998 Ron Paul 17:4
If we continue to believe that we can police the whole world and provide security and right every wrong, I think it will lead us to our bankruptcy, and just as was mentioned earlier, we receive the same kind of grief when we pretend that we can impose economic conditions on other countries.

1998 Ron Paul 17:5
We, as a wealthy Nation, are expected to bail out other countries who have overextended themselves and they get into trouble. At the same time, we put economic rules and regulations on them and resentments are turned back toward us. The Arabs in the Middle East do not understand our foreign policy because there have been numerous U.N. resolutions, but it is only this one particular resolution that we have felt so compelled to enforce.

1998 Ron Paul 17:6
And the real irony of all this is that first we use the United Nations as the excuse to go in. Then, the United Nations gets a little weak on their mandates, and they themselves do not want to go in. So it is a U.N. resolution that we try to enforce, and then when it is shown that it is not a good resolution, the U.N. then backs away from it. So there is no unanimous opinion in the U.N., I think further proving that this is a poor way to do foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul 17:7
And those who would like to do more bombing and pursue this even more aggressively tend to agree with that. They do not like the idea that we have turned over our foreign policy making to an international body like the United Nations.

1998 Ron Paul 17:8
So this, to me, is a really good time to make us stop and think should we do this? I certainly think that our foreign policy in the interests of the United States should be determined by us here in the Congress, and then some will argue, well, it is not up to Congress to deal in foreign policy. That is up to a President. But that is not what is in the Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 17:9
As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us.

1998 Ron Paul 17:10
And this is the reason why I have introduced a resolution that would say that we do have the authority to withdraw the funds from pursuing this bombing, and there is another resolution that the gentleman from Maryland will mention here shortly dealing with that same subject, because we do have the responsibility, and we, especially in the House, are closest to the people.

1998 Ron Paul 17:11
We have to be up for reelection every 2 years, and if we listen to the polls that say that 70 percent of the American people want this war, at the same time if we fail to go home and talk to our people and find out that most Americans do not want this war and there is no good argument for it.

1998 Ron Paul 17:12
The whole idea that we can immediately go over there and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction when we helped build the weapons up in the first place, and if we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not more concerned about the 25,000 nuclear warheads that have fallen into unknown hands since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Our allies in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and we have China to worry about. What did we do with China? We give them more foreign aid.

1998 Ron Paul 17:13
So there is no consistent argument that we can put up that all of a sudden Saddam Hussein is the only threat to world peace and it is in our interest to go in there and take him out. It just does not add up. If he really was a threat, you would think his neighbors would be the most frightened about this, and yet the neighbors are urging us not to do it. They are urging us to take our time, back off and wait and see what happens.

1998 Ron Paul 17:14
We, in the United States, so often are involved in conflicts around the world, and one of the things that we urge so many to do is sit down and talk to each other. We ask the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland to talk, we ask the Croats and the Serbs to talk, we ask the Jews and the Arabs to talk; why is it that we cannot do more talking with Saddam Hussein? Instead, we impose sanctions on him which does nothing to him, solidifies his support, rallies the Islamic fundamentalists while we kill babies. There is now a U.N. report that shows that since the sanctions, well over a half a million children died from starvation and lack of medicines that we denied them.

1998 Ron Paul 17:15
So I think that there is every reason in the world for us to reassess this policy. There is a much more sensible policy. What we need is more time right now. There is no urgency about this. We did the bombing in the early 1990s, and by the way, I can see this as a continuation of that single war. But since that time with inspections, even the President claims that they have gotten rid of more weapons since the war ended than occurred with the war.

1998 Ron Paul 17:16
So if there is no military victory in sight by bombing and only great danger, what is the purpose? Why can we not continue with more negotiations and more inspections? And they say, well, we cannot trust Hussein. Well, that may be true. But looking at it objectively when we finished in 1991 our policy was to encourage the Kurds and the Shiites to rebel, and we implied that we would be there, and what happened? We were not there. Thousands and thousands of Shiites and Kurds were just wiped out because we misled them, similar to our promises that we made to the Cubans in the early 1960s.

1998 Ron Paul 17:17
So we do not gain the respect of the world by, one, saying, well, we cannot trust anything he says. Of course not, we cannot trust it. But we have to be realistic, and can they trust us, as well, because our record is not perfectly clean.

1998 Ron Paul 17:18
I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BARTLETT).

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 18
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman very much for participating.

1998 Ron Paul 18:2
Early on, I talked about a policy of nonintervention; and I would like to talk a little bit more about that. Because some might construe that if you have a policy of nonintervention, it means you do not care; and that is not the case. Because we can care a whole lot.

1998 Ron Paul 18:3
There are two very important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of nonintervention, they do it. One, we believe in the rule of law and we should do it very cautiously, and that is what we are bound by here in the Congress. So that is very important.

1998 Ron Paul 18:4
The other one is a practical reason, and that is that there is not very good evidence that our intervention does much good. We do not see that intervention in Somalia has really solved the problems there, and we left there in a hurry.

1998 Ron Paul 18:5
We have spent a lot of money in Bosnia and the other places. So the evidence is not very good that intervention is involved, certainly the most abhorrent type of intervention, which is the eager and aggressive and not-wellthought- out military intervention. That is obviously the very worst.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 18:7
Of course, if you are involved in a war or there is an avowed enemy, declared enemy, that is a different story. For the most part, since World War II, we have not used those terms, we have not had declared words, we have only had “police actions,” and, therefore, we are working in a never-never limbo that nobody can well define.

1998 Ron Paul 18:8
I think it is much better that we define the process and that everybody understands it.

1998 Ron Paul 18:9
I would like to go ahead and close with a brief summary of what we have been trying to do here today. It was mentioned earlier, and I want to reemphasize it, something that has not been talked about a whole lot over this issue, has been the issue of oil. It is oil interests, money involved.

1998 Ron Paul 18:10
As I stated earlier, we were allies with Hussein when we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran, and yet, at the same time, the taking over of the Kuwait oil fields was something that we could not stand, even though there has not been a full debate over that argument. We have heard only the one side of that, who drew the lines and for what reason the lines were drawn there and whose oil was being drilled. There is a major debate there that should be fully aired before we say that it is the fault of only one.

1998 Ron Paul 18:11
But it is not so much that it was the crossing of borders. I do believe that oil interests and the huge very, very important oil fields of Iraq and what it might mean to the price of oil if they came on has a whole lot to do with this.

1998 Ron Paul 18:12
We did not worry about the Hutus and the Tutus in Africa. A lot of killing was going on there; 1 million people were being killed. Where was our compassion? Where was our compassion in the killing fields of Cambodia? We did not express the same compassion that we seem to express as soon as oil is involved.

1998 Ron Paul 18:13
We cannot let them get away with the repetition of “we got to get the weapons of mass destruction.” Of course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I would say we have done rather well getting rid of the weapons there. They are a much weaker nation militarily than they were 10 years ago, and those kind of weapons are around the world, so that, as far as I am concerned, is a weak argument.

1998 Ron Paul 18:14
Another subject that is not mentioned very often, but the prime minister of Israel just recently implied that, hopefully, we will pursue this policy of going in there and trying to topple this regime. I can understand their concerns, but I also understand the concerns of the American taxpayers and the expense of the American lives that might be involved. So I can argue my case.

1998 Ron Paul 18:15
But even taking it from an Israeli point of view, I do not know how they can be sure it is in their best interests to go over there and stir things up. They are more likely to be bombed with a terrorist bomb if we go in there and start bombing Iraq. If we do, Israel will not stand by as they did once before. They told us so.

1998 Ron Paul 18:16
So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in.

1998 Ron Paul 18:17
Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy.

1998 Ron Paul 18:18
It is not difficult for me to come down on the side of arguing for peace. Peace is what we should be for. That does not mean you give up your military, but you use your military more wisely than we have over the past 30 or 40 years. You use it for national defense.

1998 Ron Paul 18:19
Today we have a powerful military force, but a lot of people do not think we are as strong in defense as we used to be. So, yes, we are stronger than others, but if we have a failed and a flawed policy and a military that has been weakened, then we are looking for trouble.

1998 Ron Paul 18:20
So even the practical arguments call for restraint and a sensible approach, for debate and negotiations. It is for this reason I think for the moment we can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to Iraq and came back with something that is at least negotiable, and that the American people will think about and talk about. Hopefully this will lead not only to peace immediately in this area, but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion about the wisdom of a foreign policy of continued perpetual interventionism and involvement in the internal affairs of other nations.

1998 Ron Paul 18:21
If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military- industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 19
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Access To Energy 25 February 1998 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 25, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, recently, a national newsletter focusing on science, technology and energy policy highlighted the small town of Seadrift, Texas located in my District.

1998 Ron Paul 19:2
While focusing on Seadrift this newsletter article (Access to Energy) went on to make important points regarding the contributions which science and technology have made to freedom and industry and to the quality of life of people everywhere.

1998 Ron Paul 19:3
Moreover, the article outlines how certain radicals would shut off technological benefits in the name of protecting earth at the expense of the humans who live on this planet. I commend this article to every Member and insert it in the record as an extension hereof.

1998 Ron Paul 19:4
[From Access to Energy, February 1998]
SEADRIFT Near the Gulf of Mexico, on the road between Houston and Corpus Christi, is the town of Victoria, Texas — one of the oldest settlements in the western United States. Thirty-five miles southeast of Victoria, rising out of the mists that roll in from the Gulf near the town of Seadrift, is one of America’s great petrochemical plants, built by Union Carbide in 1954 and later expanded several times.

1998 Ron Paul 19:5
I feel that I know this plant well, since I have a large framed aerial photograph of it on the wall beside me along with a matching framed artist’s drawing of the plant before it was built. Under the artist’s drawing is the aluminum hard hat of the man who was in charge of the design and construction of this plant and partially responsible for its operation during the first four years — my father, Edward H. “Ted” Robinson. His most trusted and valued co-worker at that time, Arnold Graham, still lives in Victoria, remembering their efforts.

1998 Ron Paul 19:6
Ted Robinson went on to lead teams of engineers who designed and built similar Union Carbide plants in Puerto Rico, Scotland, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, and India. He is buried in an alpine glacier near the top of Mont Blanc on the border between France and Italy, which contains the remains of the Air India Boeing 707 that crashed there on January 24, 1966. The cause of this crash is not known for certain. It is believed to have been the work of assassins that killed the Indian physicist Bhaba, who was then head of the nuclear energy program of India and was also on the airplane.

1998 Ron Paul 19:7
The original plant at Seadrift produced primarily polyethylene. It now produces additional products. This plant is a part of the vast infrastructure of chemical plants, built by the generation of Americans now in their 80s and the generations before them, that supplies the chemicals upon which our technological civilization depends. Along with the dams, bridges, foundries, mines, wells, mills, factories, railroads, research laboratories, computers, and other technological installations that have been built by the past several generations of Americans, these plants form the technological superstructure upon which our science, technology, and economic freedom depend.

1998 Ron Paul 19:8
The capital required to build these things was supplied by the savings of tens of millions of people, who set aside part of the money they had earned and invested it in the free market in hopes of making a profit. It was also built by the profits retained by the corporations themselves. Capital alone did not, however, build the industries — people did. These people were led by unusual individuals whose love of science and technology dominated their personal lives and drove them and those around them to ever greater accomplishments.

1998 Ron Paul 19:9
Archibald MacLeish told me many years ago that the thing that impressed him most about human beings was their amazing ability to love — and he was not thinking of the shallow phenomenon that dominates the lyrics in the cacophony of “pusic” (word invented by a musician friend) which pollutes most of America’s radio stations.

1998 Ron Paul 19:10
Each person has an enormous capacity to love — in many different ways. In some individuals, a part of this love is intensely directed toward science and technology. My father, for example, was simply head-overheels in love with chemical plants (and with my mother, but that is another story). He lived and breathed their design and construction. When not in use for food, our kitchen table was covered with blueprints. He had no hobbies or avocations — the building of chemical plants was his vocation and all of his avocations combined. And, as a result of this all-consuming love, he built superb plants.

1998 Ron Paul 19:11
I have seen this sort of love in a few other individuals. Mrs. Merrifield, the wife of R. Bruce Merrifield, who was the first man to synthesize an enzyme, described her husband’s love affair with each of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids — a love that enabled him to link them together in ways never before accomplished.

1998 Ron Paul 19:12
Linus Pauling, regardless of the low state of his personal and professional ethics, was completely in love with the structures of molecules. The incredible joy Linus felt as he pursued three-dimensional, semi-quantitative explanations for the structures of molecules and, later, for the structures of atomic nuclei was the greatest of all the scientists I have known. He was supremely happy when calculating or describing the properties of chemical bonds.

1998 Ron Paul 19:13
Scientists work largely alone or with a few other people. Those who build industries work with large numbers of people. These prime builders, driven by their love for their work, are usually not the most well-liked, but they are often the most respected. It is their job to make our industrial world work — regardless of the personal foibles of those whom they must direct in doing this work. Their personal love for their work is the driving force that motivates them.

1998 Ron Paul 19:14
All of us are beneficiaries of science and technology. We live lives that are much longer and are filled with seemingly endless pleasures, experiences, and freedoms that would not be available without technology. Even the “warmers” who gathered in Kyoto to bemoan and attack the world’s hydrocarbon technology dropped in by way of airplanes belching demon carbon dioxide.

1998 Ron Paul 19:15
Now, virtually all of our technology is under serious attack. From our lumber mills, farms, and ranches to our dams, power plants, and factories, all are under assault. Our enemies belong to a peculiar form of pagan religion. Petr Beckmann called it the “green religion.” This is not a new religion. The animal, plant, and earth worship ascendant today (partially at the expense of animals, plants, and the earth, which are, on balance, actually harmed by this mania) is fundamentally the same as that which arose periodically among the ancients, as chronicled, for example, in the Old Testament.

1998 Ron Paul 19:16
This religion is now preached in our schools, our press, and our political institutions. It is, primarily, a religion of death. Technology, in the view of these zealots, has committed a terrible sin. It has made possible the lives of billions of human beings — human beings whom they believe to be alive at the expense of worshiped plants and animals. (The fact that technology enhances the lives of plants and animals is suppressed by the professional enviro religious agitators.)

1998 Ron Paul 19:17
It is the moral obligation of every American — each living and benefiting from freedom and technology; each obligated to pass these blessings on to future generations; and each entrusted with a vote in the fate of the great American experiment — to stop this mania.

1998 Ron Paul 19:18
Seadrift and the tens of thousands of like accomplishments must not be destroyed — at least not without a terrible fight.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 20
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Privacy Protection Act 25 February 1998 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 25, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.

1998 Ron Paul 20:2
Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only consult 1996’s welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national data base.

1998 Ron Paul 20:3
Another example of the abuse of the Social Security number is a provision in tax law requiring a spouse paying alimony furnish the IRS with the Social Security number of the spouse receiving alimony.

1998 Ron Paul 20:4
There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally- authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens.

1998 Ron Paul 20:5
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionallyauthorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation’s founders.

1998 Ron Paul 20:6
Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 21
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr. 25 February 1998 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 25, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

1998 Ron Paul 21:2
Our founding fathers formed our government to ensure that no single person could have complete power or authority over any aspect of government; to give anyone that kind of power is to invite tyranny.

1998 Ron Paul 21:3
I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Sproul’s article. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution: an oath which we must take seriously if we are to promote liberty, peace and civil society.

1998 Ron Paul 21:4
BOMBING THE CONSTITUTION
By R.C. Sproul, Jr. When was the last time the United States went to war? That’s not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a “police action.” Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.

1998 Ron Paul 21:5
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?

1998 Ron Paul 21:6
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above “non-wars” however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?

1998 Ron Paul 21:7
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the “War Powers Act” which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that’s not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.

1998 Ron Paul 21:8
Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action.

1998 Ron Paul 21:9
And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren’t wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they’re in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that’s war.

1998 Ron Paul 21:10
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I’m not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can’t read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander- in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 21:11
These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 22
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Wireless Telephone Protection Act 26 February 1998

1998 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2460, The Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Setting aside the vital and relevant question of whether the enumerated powers and tenth amendment allow the federal government to make possession of electronic scanning devices criminal, another aspect of this bill should have met with harsh criticism from those who hold individual liberties in even some regard.

1998 Ron Paul 22:2
Under current “anti-cloning” law, prosecutors must prove a defendant intended to use scanning equipment illegally, or have an “intent” to defraud. This bill shifts the burden of proof of “innocent use” from the prosecutor to the defendant.

1998 Ron Paul 22:3
The United States Constitution prohibits this federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the persecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to ten years).

1998 Ron Paul 22:4
This radical departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” warrants opposition to this bill.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 23
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act 5 March 1998 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 5, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act H.R. 3339. This legislation would condition the continuation of farm subsidies on the maintenance of rice production. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy will continue to flow in spite of an end to production.

1998 Ron Paul 23:2
Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to “wean” landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are “something for nothing” subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.

1998 Ron Paul 23:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by this legislation they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers.

1998 Ron Paul 23:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.

1998 Ron Paul 23:5
America’s rice farmers are among the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. Our rice producers can compete with anyone absent such hurdles and this bill will help remove one. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations which would like access to rice produced in America. Further we should eliminate the burdensome taxes regulations on America’s farmers to insure increased market access and a healthy farming community in the these United States.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 24
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

S. 419 Oversteps Enumerated Powers 10 March 1998

1998 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers.

1998 Ron Paul 24:2
For most of the past thirty years, I have worked as physician specializing in obstetrics. In so doing, I delivered more than 4,000 infants. Despite what I believe to be a somewhat unique insight on the topic of birth defect prevention, today, I address the house as a Congressman rather than as a physician.

1998 Ron Paul 24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export- Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in politicalrisk- laden venues?

1998 Ron Paul 24:4
In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the “defense and welfare” clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8.

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 Federalistcontrolled 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.

1998 Ron Paul 24:6
Jefferson, in one of his most famous remarks, when addressing the issue of whether to grant a federal charter to a mining business, recognized below the slippery slope of a lax interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause:

1998 Ron Paul 24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]

1998 Ron Paul 24:8
Cleary, while engaging in such congressional activism makes “clean work,” it also makes for an oppressive national government involved in every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Remember that in engaging in such activism, the next liberty upon which the Congress infringes, may be your own.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 24:10
For these reasons I oppose S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 25
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming.

1998 Ron Paul 25:2
Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie?

1998 Ron Paul 25:3
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova “without question a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?

1998 Ron Paul 25:4
Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, “All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.” What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.

1998 Ron Paul 25:5
All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions.

1998 Ron Paul 25:6
The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.

1998 Ron Paul 25:7
Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 25:8
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.

1998 Ron Paul 25:9
Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.

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?

1998 Ron Paul 25:11
Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.

1998 Ron Paul 25:12
Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.

1998 Ron Paul 25:13
Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 26
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina 17 March 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

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

1998 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues two House concurrent resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow.

1998 Ron Paul 26:2
The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

1998 Ron Paul 26:3
The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months, and each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended.

1998 Ron Paul 26:4
Currently, it is the President’s position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date for this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble.

1998 Ron Paul 26:5
Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.

1998 Ron Paul 26:6
There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot.

1998 Ron Paul 26:7
So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionism foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm’s way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger.

1998 Ron Paul 26:8
Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves.

1998 Ron Paul 26:9
So it is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by imposing and sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region?

1998 Ron Paul 26:10
So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.

1998 Ron Paul 26:11
So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.

1998 Ron Paul 26:12
I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region.

1998 Ron Paul 26:13
But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 27
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Bombing Iraq 18 March 1998

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

1998 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.

1998 Ron Paul 27:2
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 27:3
The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.

1998 Ron Paul 27:4
Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency.

1998 Ron Paul 27:5
Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.

1998 Ron Paul 27:6
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.

1998 Ron Paul 27:7
The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.

1998 Ron Paul 27:8
Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm’s way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable.

1998 Ron Paul 27:9
We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 28
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Mexico City Policy 26 March 1998

1998 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

1998 Ron Paul 28:2
MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.

1998 Ron Paul 28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.

1998 Ron Paul 28:4
In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions.

1998 Ron Paul 28:5
UNITED NATIONS The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization. Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony “back dues” which we supposedly “owe” this organization. Congressman ROSCOE BARTLETT put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. BARTLETT’s legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 28:6
LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.

1998 Ron Paul 28:7
This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a “deal” has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.

1998 Ron Paul 28:8
THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN” The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle.

1998 Ron Paul 28:9
“PEACEKEEPING” This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our “police the world” program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.

1998 Ron Paul 28:10
ADDTIONALLY This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.

1998 Ron Paul 28:11
Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.

1998 Ron Paul 28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)

1998 Ron Paul 28:13
CONCLUSION Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 29
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Unfortunate Passage Of Foreign Affairs Conference Report 27 March 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

1998 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs conference report was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. For weeks, arms had been twisted because the votes were not available to pass it. This surprised some and pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue.

1998 Ron Paul 29:2
But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed.

1998 Ron Paul 29:3
It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified.

1998 Ron Paul 29:4
Events surrounding the passage of the foreign affairs conference report occurring yesterday should not make any of us proud.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 30
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Illegal Wars 31 March 1998

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

1998 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SKAGGS) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much his work in this effort.

1998 Ron Paul 30:2
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is “best part.” By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm’s way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there.

1998 Ron Paul 30:3
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 31
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998

1998 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill to further fund, at the expense of airports and Section 8 Housing Assistance, the unconstitutional effort to “police the world.” Having submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund the “police the world” aspects of this bill only to be denied in the Rules process, I must oppose final passage of this supplemental Appropriations bill.

1998 Ron Paul 31:2
One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 31:3
Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport funding to be spent on our “policethe- world” program.

1998 Ron Paul 31:4
It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 31:5
I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.

1998 Ron Paul 31:6
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.

1998 Ron Paul 31:7
For these reasons I must oppose this bill which provides additional funding for exactly these purposes.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 32
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

On Regulating Credit Unions 1 April 1998

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I am an original cosponsor of 1151. But the original bill never came to the committee. It was quickly substituted with another bill, which I think is seriously weakened from the original bill that we had. So I would like to let all those 207 Members who are cosponsors that are not voting on the bill that they signed their name onto know that there are two major changes that have occurred.

1998 Ron Paul 32:2
One is that the multiple common-bond position of 1151 has been removed. Now it is restrictive. And the other thing is there has been a lot of regulations added, and I think that we should consider long-term economic consequences and political consequences of opening up the door to regulations and also what it means down the road as far as insurance goes.

1998 Ron Paul 32:3
For instance, it was bragged upon, the bill was bragged upon because the regulations of safety and soundness was good. We have had a lot of regulation, for safety and soundness for banks and savings and loan, and yet the FDIC and FSLIC had to be bailed out. The insurance deposit for credit unions was started by private money, no government subsidies, and has never been bailed out. So now we are going to overlook the credit unions and make sure they are safer and sound.

1998 Ron Paul 32:4
I think it is the wrong direction that we are going. I think the whole notion that we are going to have the Community Reinvestment Act applied to the credit unions is going in the wrong direction. This is a form of credit allocation and, actually, long term, will weaken the credit unions.

1998 Ron Paul 32:5
I would like to speak up for the credit unions and say this bill has been weakened to such a degree that they have opened up the doors, and down the road they are going to be treated like the banks, and down the road they will probably receive the taxation that banks have.

1998 Ron Paul 32:6
I resent the idea that the competitors and the small banks, who do not like the competition of the credit unions, they say, well, let us tax them and regulate them. So, in a way, we have accommodated the banks by adding the regulations onto the credit unions.

1998 Ron Paul 32:7
I do not think this is going in the right direction, and we should seriously consider a no vote on this legislation.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 33
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Credit Union Membership Access Act 1 April 1998

1998 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since I was the first one in this Congress to step forward and introduce legislation affirming the NCUA’s position allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions and signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 1151 as originally written, I feel that I am in a disagreement among friends. I must oppose this bill because of the new regulations it imposes on credit unions and does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of the banks.

1998 Ron Paul 33:2
While I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions, the new regulations imposed upon them demonstrate a decision to follow the wrong path to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions. A better approach would have been to lead the congress towards less taxes and less regulation. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the committee, follows a path of more regulations and leads toward higher taxes on credit unions while the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, which I introduced a year ago, lowers taxes and regulations on banks. While H.R. 1151 does not impose new, direct taxes on credit unions, I fear that that day is just around the corner.

1998 Ron Paul 33:3
The NCUSIF was the only deposit insurance fund started without any federal seed money and the credit unions never came to Washington for a taxpayer-funded bailout. In fact, allowing multiple common bonds for credit unions enhanced their safety and soundness. This bill will add new “safety and soundness” and CRA-like regulations on credit unions. These regulations will add a burdensome regulatory cost. This cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher fees, higher interest rates and less service. It is the marginal consumer who will lose the most when this bill becomes law.

1998 Ron Paul 33:4
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulations can only be larger.”

1998 Ron Paul 33:5
These regulations, under which the credit unions will now suffer a greater burden with the passage of this bill, impose a disproportionate burden on smaller institutions. These increased, and unfairly imposed, regulations will stifle the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector and contribute to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. As the introduction of new entrants into the market becomes more costly, smaller institutions will face a marginally increased burden and will be more likely to consolidate. “The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.

1998 Ron Paul 33:6
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. CRA compliance costs for small banks was $1 billion and 14.4 million employee hours in 1991. For each $1 million in assets, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.

1998 Ron Paul 33:7
The IBAA study identifies the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. In short, this bill takes the most costly and least beneficial and useful regulation on banks and adds a similar, new regulation on credit unions. Reducing the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks would have been a better approach.

1998 Ron Paul 33:8
In addition to all of the problems associated with the obligations and requirements that the government regulations impose on the productive, private sectors of the economy, the regulations amount to a government credit allocation scheme. As Ludwig von Mises explained well in the Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, governmental credit allocation is a misdirection of credit which leads to malinvestment and contributes to an artificial boom and bust cycle. Nobel laureate Frederick A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard expounded on this idea.

1998 Ron Paul 33:9
The unintended consequences of the passage of this bill, as written, will be to stifle the formation on new credit unions, consolidate current credit unions into larger ones better able to internalize the cost of the additional regulations, and lower productivity and economic growth due to the misallocation of credit. This increased burden must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The increased costs on credit unions this bill imposes will lead to a reduction of access to credit unions, higher fees and higher rates. These provisions are anti-consumer. The marginal consumers, those who currently can only receive a loan from a credit union without the burden of CRA, are the ones who will suffer under the provision of this bill. I hope that the bill can be improved as the process continues and lead to less regulations and other taxes on banks rather than more regulations and other taxes on credit unions.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 34
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Building Highways Is State Function 1 April 1998

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

1998 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

1998 Ron Paul 34:2
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.

1998 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course today we do not debate that issue in that light, but I think we see the results of doing something that was not proper. Today it is very expensive, it is very bureaucratic, and we have seen tonight in the debate how it has become politicized.

1998 Ron Paul 34:4
So if we are looking for a fair way to build highways, a more efficient way to build highways, I think this is the answer. This is not going backwards, this is going forward. This would be the first time we could have a national highway system really controlled by the States where it is supposed to be. The States would have more money, not less money. They would have less regulation, not more regulation.

1998 Ron Paul 34:5
This is much better than block grants. This is returning responsibility to the States. I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 35
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised 21 April 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the House is about to implement rule changes that will require random drug testing of all House Members and staff. Drug usage in this country, both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be done.

1998 Ron Paul 35:2
The real issue here is not drugs but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the fourth amendment.

1998 Ron Paul 35:3
A broader but related question is whether or not it is the government’s role to mold behavior, any more than it is the government’s role to mold, regulate, tax and impede voluntary economic contractual arrangements.

1998 Ron Paul 35:4
No one advocates prior restraint to regulate journalistic expression, even though great harm has come over the century from the promotion of authoritarian ideas. Likewise, we do not advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs, however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem.

1998 Ron Paul 35:5
Yet we casually assume it is the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly. A large number of us in this Chamber do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it is the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun.

1998 Ron Paul 35:6
Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable efforts at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect for our privacy. It is not worth it.

1998 Ron Paul 35:7
While some Members are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a fairer society, there are others here who are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a good society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians and bureaucrats know what is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched, why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well? Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner as well. Especially we who champion the cause of limited government ought not be the promoters of the roving eye of Big Brother.

1998 Ron Paul 35:8
If we embark on this course to check randomly all congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it might be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good is inconsistent, to say the least. Unfortunately, the administration is now pursuing an anti-tobacco policy that will be even less successful than the illfated Federal war on drugs.

1998 Ron Paul 35:9
I have one question for my colleagues: If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty and our own innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents, which we have sworn an oath to do?

1998 Ron Paul 35:10
Those promoting these drug testing rules are well motivated, just as are those who promote economic welfare legislation. Members with good intentions attempting to solve social problems perversely use government power and inevitably hurt innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few.

1998 Ron Paul 35:11
It is said that if one has nothing to hide, why object to testing? Because, quite simply, we have something to keep: our freedom, our privacy and the fourth amendment. The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary drug testing, whereby each individual and each Member of the House makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 36
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes 22 April 1998

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this very important issue to the floor.

1998 Ron Paul 36:2
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentlemen and ladies on the other side who have spoken out against this resolution, because I have to compliment them. They are brave to be able to come up here and speak their beliefs and really come out on the position of being for taxes. If I did something like that, I could not return to Texas. But I have to admire them for their willingness to come here and take a pro-tax position, so I think that is to be commended.

1998 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be worrying.

1998 Ron Paul 36:4
The other contention we have and have to think about is if we do not already follow the Constitution in so many ways, why are we going to follow it next time? Nevertheless, this is a great debate. I am glad I am a cosponsor. I am glad it was brought to the floor.

1998 Ron Paul 36:5
We do have to remember there is another half to taxation and that is the spending half. It is politically unpopular to talk about spending. It is politically very popular to talk about the taxes. So, yes, we are for lower taxes, but we also have to realize that the government is too big. They are consuming 50 percent of our revenues and our income today, and that is the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 36:6
Government can pay for these bills in three different ways. One, they can tax us. One, they can borrow. And one, they can have the tax of inflation, which is indeed a tax. We are dealing here only with one single tax. But eventually, when we make a sincere effort to get this government under control, we will look at all three areas.

1998 Ron Paul 36:7
We will limit the borrowing power. We will limit the ability of this Congress to inflate the currency to pay the bills. And we certainly will follow the rules of this House and this Constitution and not raise taxes.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 37
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Education In America Is Facing Crisis 22 April 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

1998 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, education in this country is facing a crisis. If we look at our schools carefully, we find out that there are a lot of drugs in our schools, actually murders occur in our schools, rape occurs in our schools, it is infested with teenage pregnancies. There is total disrespect for authority in many of our schools, and there is no good record to show that the academic progress is being made that is necessary.

1998 Ron Paul 37:2
The President happens to believe that if we have national testing, this will solve all our problems. And now he is addressing these very, very serious problems that we have in our schools with saying that if we can only get these kids not to smoke a cigarette, maybe we are going to solve these educational problems.

1998 Ron Paul 37:3
I would say that he is going in the wrong directions. These are serious problems and we must do something, but pretending that we are going to crack down on kids testing a cigarette, as bad as it is, is not going to solve our problems.

1998 Ron Paul 37:4
I have a couple suggestions to make on what we can do to improve the educational system. I have a bill that I introduced recently. It is H.R. 3626. It is called the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This is a bill I think everybody in this body could support.

1998 Ron Paul 37:5
What it does, it takes away taxation on any youngster who makes some money at one of these 4–H or Future Farmers of America fairs. When they sell their livestock, believe it or not, we go and tax them. Just think of this. The kids are out there trying to do something for themselves, earn some money, save some money and go to school; and what do we do as a Congress, we pick on the kids, we go and we tax these kids.

1998 Ron Paul 37:6
I talked to a youngster just this past weekend in the farm community in my district, and he told me he just sold an animal for $1,200 and he has to give $340 to the U.S. Government. Now, what are we doing, trying to destroy the incentive for these youngsters assuming some responsibility for themselves? Instead, what do we do? We say the only way a youngster could ever go to college is if we give them a grant, if we give them a scholarship, if we give them a student loan. And what is the record on payment on student loans? Not very good. A lot of them walk away.

1998 Ron Paul 37:7
There is also the principle of it. Why should the Federal Government be involved in this educational process? And besides, the other question is, if we give scholarships and low-interest loans to people who go to college, what we are doing is making the people who do not get to go to college pay for that education, which to me does not seem fair. It seems like that the advantage goes to the individual who gets to go to college, and the people who do not get to go to college should not have to subsidize them.

1998 Ron Paul 37:8
I think it is unfair it pick on these kids. I think it is time that we quit taxing any youngster who makes some money at a 4–H fair or Future Farmers of America fair where they are selling their livestock and trying to earn money to go to college.

1998 Ron Paul 37:9
I think it is proper to say that they should have no taxation without representation. They are not even old enough to vote, and here we are taxing them. I mean that is not fair.

1998 Ron Paul 37:10
So I am hoping that I get a lot of cosponsors for this bill, because there sure are a lot of youngsters around the country trying to assume responsibility for themselves.

1998 Ron Paul 37:11
I do not believe for 1 minute the President’s approach that we are going to assume that every kid is going to grow up to be a smoke fiend, and if we do not do something quickly, we are going to have them developing all these bad habits; at the same time, we see the deterioration of the public educational system.

1998 Ron Paul 37:12
Also, I would like to mention very briefly another piece of legislation that would deal with this educational crisis. The Federal Government has been involved in our public schools for several decades. There is no evidence to show that, as we increase the funding and increase the bureaucracy, that there has been any improvement in education. Quite to the contrary, the exact opposite has happened.

1998 Ron Paul 37:13
So I would say there is a very good practical case. I know the constitutional argument does not mean much. But the practical case is there is no evidence that what we have done so far has been helpful.

1998 Ron Paul 37:14
I have another piece of legislation that would give $3,000 tax credit to every family for every child that they want to educate by themselves. So if they would spend any money on their child, whether they are in school or out of school, in private school, at home schooling, they would get this $3,000 credit. I hope my colleagues will take a look at these two pieces of legislation.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 38
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Don’t Bail Out Bankers 23 April 1998

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to this motion. This should be a very easy vote for all of us; we should all vote no. They already have $35 billion of our money. They want $18 billion more. That is $53 billion.

1998 Ron Paul 38:2
Think about it. Some of you would like to spend that on the military, on national defense. That would not be too bad an idea. Others might want to spend it on domestic welfare programs. This would be a better idea than bailing out rich bankers and foreign governments. Besides, there are some of us who would like to give the $53 billion back to the American people and lower their taxes. But to give them another $18 billion does not make any sense.

1998 Ron Paul 38:3
Then to come to us and say it will not cost the taxpayers any money is absurd. Why do they come here and try to sneak through this appropriation with a parliamentary trick, if it is not going to cost the taxpayers any money? Certainly it is going to cost the taxpayers money. It adds to the national debt, and we have to pay interest on the national debt. This is a cost.

1998 Ron Paul 38:4
Now, the Director of the IMF had an interesting proposal. He said this will not cost us anything because it is coming out of the Central Bank.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 39
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Bubble 28 April 1998

EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME

1998 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. JONES).

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

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 39:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the big question is how history will play the current financial situation if all the great wealth accumulated in the last 10 years dissipates in a financial collapse.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 39:4
Alan Greenspan took over the Fed a few months before the stock market crash of October, 1997. In the 10 years that Greenspan has headed the Fed, $2 trillion of new credit has been created as measured by M3. Banks threatened by bankruptcy in the early 1990s received generous assistance from the Fed policy of low interest rates and rapid credit expansion as a response to the recession of 1991. Fed fund rates were held at 3 percent for well over a year. This generous dose of Fed credit has fueled the 5-year superboom on Wall Street.

1998 Ron Paul 39:5
We are endlessly told no inflation exists. But inflation is strictly and always a monetary phenomenon and not something that can be measured by a government consumer or producer price index.

1998 Ron Paul 39:6
Even so, there currently is significant price inflation for the fancy homes throughout the country, especially in the New York and Connecticut areas influenced by the New York financial center. CEO compensation is astronomically high, while wages for the common man have been held in check. The cost of all entertainment is not cheap and rises constantly. Art prices are soaring, as is the price of tickets to athletic events. Buying stocks with a 1.8 percent dividend yield is not cheap. These prices are inflated. The cost of education, medicine, and general services are expensive and rising.

1998 Ron Paul 39:7
In spite of Government reports showing food prices are not rising, many constituents I talk to tell me food prices are always going up. It seems every family has difficulty compensating for the high cost of living and taxes are always inflating.

1998 Ron Paul 39:8
There is no doubt that many Americans know the salaries of the CEOs, athletes and entertainers are astronomically high. The wages of the average working man, though, has not kept up. Workers feel poorer and resentment grows.

1998 Ron Paul 39:9
Even with all of Wall Street’s euphoria, Main Street still harbors deep concern for their financial condition and the future of the country. Many families continue to find it difficult to pay their bills, and personal bankruptcies are at a record high at 1,400,000 per year. Downsizing of our large corporations continue as many manufacturing jobs are sent overseas.

1998 Ron Paul 39:10
This current financial bubble started in mid-1982. At that time, the money supply, as measured by M3, was $2.4 trillion. Today it is over $5.5 trillion. That is a lot of inflation, and money supply growth is currently accelerating.

1998 Ron Paul 39:11
Although the money supply has been significantly increased in the past 16 years and financial prices as well as other prices have gone up, Government officials continue to try to reassure the American people that there is no inflation to worry about because price increases, as measured by the Government’s CPI and PPI, are not significantly rising.

1998 Ron Paul 39:12
Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated. If we had an average valuation of the Dow Jones Industrials for the past 87 years, as measured by the PE ratios, the Dow would be a mere 4,100 today, not over 9,000. And the Dow would be much lower yet if we took the average price-to-dividend ratio or the price-to-book ratio.

1998 Ron Paul 39:13
The NASDAQ is now selling at 85 times earning. There is no doubt that most stock prices are grossly inflated and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 39:15
Think of this: Money can be borrowed in Japan at Depression-era rates of 1 percent and then reinvested here in the United States either in more treasury debt earning 5 or 6 percent, or reinvested in our stock market, which is currently climbing at a 20 percent annualized rate. This sounds like a perfect deal for today’s speculators, but there is nothing that guarantees this process will continue for much longer. Perfect situations never last forever.

1998 Ron Paul 39:16
Some of the euphoria that adds to the financial bubble on Wall Street and internationally is based on optimistic comments made by our government officials. Political leaders remind us time and again that our budget is balanced and the concern now is how to spend the excess. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the money that is being used to offset the deficit comes from our trust funds.

1998 Ron Paul 39:17
In other words, it’s comparable to a corporation stealing from its pension fund in order to show a better bottom line in its day-to-day operations. Government spending and deficits are not being brought under control. Tax rates are at historic highs, and all government taxation now consumes 50 percent of the gross national income.

1998 Ron Paul 39:18
It is now commonly believed that the East Asian financial crisis is having no impact on our economy. But it’s too early to make that kind of an assessment. Our president remains popular, according to the polls, but what will it be like if there’s any sign of economic weakness? There could then be a lot of “piling on” and finger pointing.

1998 Ron Paul 39:19
PROBLEMS AND VICTIMS The basic cause of any financial bubble is the artificial creation of credit by a central bank (in this case our Federal Reserve). Artificially creating credit causes the currency to depreciate in value over time. It is important to understand the predictable economic problems that result from a depreciating currency:

1998 Ron Paul 39:20
1. In the early stages it is difficult to forecast exactly who will suffer and when.

1998 Ron Paul 39:21
2. Inflated currency and artificially low interest rates result in mal-investment that produces over capacity in one area or another.

1998 Ron Paul 39:22
3. Wealth generally transfers from the hands of the middle-class into the hands of the very wealthy. (The very poor receiving welfare gain a degree of protection, short of a total destruction of the currency.)

1998 Ron Paul 39:23
4. Prices indeed do go up, although which prices will go up is unpredictable, and the CPI and PPI can never be a dependable measurement of a monetary policy driven by loose credit.

1998 Ron Paul 39:24
5. The group that suffers the very most is the low-middle-income group (those willing to stay off welfare, yet unable to benefit from any transfer of wealth as stagnant wages fail to protect them from the ravages of the rising cost of living).

1998 Ron Paul 39:25
There are probably several reasons why this current economic boom has lasted longer than most others. The elimination of the Soviet threat has allowed a feeling of optimism not felt in many decades, and there has subsequently been tremendous optimism placed on potential economic development of many world markets in this age of relative peace.

1998 Ron Paul 39:26
There is also very poor understanding regarding economic interventionism, the system most nations of the world accept today. Today’s interventionism is not close to a free market. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises consistently pointed out that interventionism always leads to a form of socialism, which then eliminates the apparent benefits of interventionism.

1998 Ron Paul 39:27
A good example of how interventionism leads to the destruction of a market can be seen in the recent tobacco fiasco. First, the tobacco industry accepted subsidies and protectionism to build a powerful and wealthy industry. Then, having conceded this “nanny” role to the government, Big Tobacco had no defense when it was held liable for illnesses that befell some of the willing users of tobacco products. Now, the current plan of super taxation on tobacco users will allow the politicians to bail out the individual farmers who may be injured by reduced use of tobacco products (destruction of the market). This half-trilliondollar tax proposal hardly solves the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 39:28
Just as in the 1920’s today’s productivity has fooled some economists by keeping prices down on certain items. Certainly computer prices are down because the price of computer-power has dropped drastically, yet this should not be interpreted as an “absence” of inflation. Innovation has kept prices down in the computer industry, but it fails to do so when government becomes overly involved as it has in other technological areas, such as medical technology, where prices have gone up for services such as MRIs and CAT scans, not down.

1998 Ron Paul 39:29
LEARN FROM JAPAN The most important thing to remember is that perceptions and economic conditions here can change rapidly, just as they did last summer in the East Asian countries with the bursting of their financial bubble. They are now in deep recession.

1998 Ron Paul 39:30
Even though Japan first recognized signs of difficulty nine years ago, their problems linger because they have not allowed the liquidation of debt, or the elimination of over capacity, or the adjustment for real estate prices that would occur if the market were permitted to operate free of government intervention. The U.S. did the same thing in the 1930s, and I suspect we will do exactly what Japan is doing once our problems become more pressing. With our own problems from the inflation of the last 15 years now becoming apparent, their only answer so far is to inflate even more.

1998 Ron Paul 39:31
In its effort to re-energize the economy, the Bank of Japan is increasing its reserves at a 51 percent rate. This may be the greatest effort to “inflate” and economy back to health in all of history. Japan has inflated over the years and will not permit a full correction of their mal-investment. The Bank of Japan is doing everything possible to inflate again, but even with interest rates below 1 percent there are few takers.

1998 Ron Paul 39:32
OECD measurements, the M1 and quasimoney have been increasing at greater than 20 percent per year in East Asia. In the United Stats, M3 has been increasing at 10 percent a year. It is estimated that this year the U.S. will have a $250 billion current account deficit — continued evidence of our ability to export our inflation.

1998 Ron Paul 39:33
We are now the world’s greatest debtor, with an approximately $1 trillion debt to foreign nations. Although accumulation of our debt by foreign holders has leveled off, it has not dropped significantly. The peak occurred in mid-1997 — today these holding are slightly lower.

1998 Ron Paul 39:34
THE CRUELEST TAX OF ALL This process of deliberately depreciating a currency over time (inflation) causes a loss in purchasing power and is especially harmful to those individuals who save. AIER (American Institute for Economic Research) calculates that 100 million households since 1945 have lost $11.2 trillion in purchasing power. This comes out to $112,000 per household, or put another way, over 5 decades each one of these households lost $2,200 every year.

1998 Ron Paul 39:35
Although many households are feeling very wealthy today because their stock portfolios are more valuable, this can change rather rapidly in a crash. The big question is what does the future hold for the purchasing power of the dollar over the next 10 or 20 years?

1998 Ron Paul 39:36
THE END IN SIGHT? Reassurance that all is well is a strategy found at the end of a boom cycle. Government revenues are higher than anticipated, and many are feeling richer than they are. The more inflated the stock market is as a consequence of credit creation, the less, reliable these markets are at predicting future economic events. Stock markets can be good predictors of the future, but the more speculative they become, the less likely it is the markets will reveal what the world will be like next year.

1998 Ron Paul 39:37
The business cycle — the boom-bust cycle of history — has not been repealed. The psychological element of trust in the money, politicians, and central bankers can permit financial bubbles to last longer, but policies can vary as well as perceptions, both being unpredictable.

1998 Ron Paul 39:38
CENTRAL BANKERS The goal of central bankers has always been to gain “benefit” from the inflation they create, while preventing deflation and prolonging the boom as long as possible — a formidable task indeed. The more sophisticated and successful the central bankers are as technicians, the larger the bubble they create.

1998 Ron Paul 39:39
In recent years, central bankers have had greater “success” for several reasons. First, due to the age in which we live, internationalizing labor costs has been a great deal more convenient. It is much easier for companies to either shift labor from one country to another, or for the company itself to go to the area of the world that provides the cheapest labor. This has occurred with increased rapidity and ease over the past two decades.

1998 Ron Paul 39:40
Central bankers have also become more sophisticated in the balancing act between inflation and deflation. They are great technicians and are quite capable of interpreting events and striking a balance between these two horrors. This does not cancel out the basic flaw of a fiat currency; central bankers cannot replace the marketplace for determining interest rates and the proper amount of credit the economy needs.

1998 Ron Paul 39:41
Central bankers have also had the advantage of technological changes that increase productivity and also serve to keep down certain prices. It is true that we live in an information age, an age in which travel is done with ease and communication improvements are astounding. All of these events allow for a bigger bubble and a higher standards of living. Unfortunately this will not prove to be as sustainable as many hope.

1998 Ron Paul 39:42
THE PRICE OF GOLD Another reason for the central bankers greater recent success is that they have been quite willing to cooperate with each other in propping up selected currency values and driving down others. They have cooperated vigorously in dumping or threatening to dump gold in order to keep the dollar price of gold in check. They are all very much aware that a soaring gold price would be a vote of no confidence for central-bank policy.

1998 Ron Paul 39:43
Washington goes along because it is furtively, but definitely, acknowledged there that a free-market, high gold price would send a bad signal worldwide about the world financial system. Therefore, every effort is made to keep the price of gold low for as long as possible. It’s true the supply-siders have some interest in gold, but they are not talking about a gold standard, merely a price rule that encourages central-bank fixing of the price of gold. Most defenders of the free-enterprise system in Washington are Keynesians at heart and will not challenge interventionism on principle.

1998 Ron Paul 39:44
Instead of making sure that policy is correct, central bankers are much more interested in seeing that the gold-price message reflects confidence in the paper money. Thus gold has remained in the doldrums despite significant rising prices for silver, platinum, and palladium. However, be assured that even central banks cannot “fix” the price of gold forever. They tried this in the 1960’s with the dumping of hundreds of millions of ounces of American gold in order to artificially prop up the dollar by keeping the gold price at $35/oz., but in August 1971 this effort was abandoned.

1998 Ron Paul 39:45
THE SOLUTION The solution to all of this is not complex. But no effort is going to be made to correct the problems that have allowed our financial bubble to develop, because Alan Greenspan has been practically declared a god by more than one Wall Street guru. Because Alan Greenspan himself understands Austrian free-market economics and the gold standard, it is stunning to see him participate in the bubble when he, deep down inside, knows big problems lurk around the corner. Without the motivation to do something, not much is likely to happen to our monetary system in the near future.

1998 Ron Paul 39:46
It must be understood that politicians and the pressure of the special interests in Washington demand that the current policies of spending, deficits, artificially low interest rates and easy credit will not change. It took the complete demise of the Soviet-Communist system before change came there. But be forewarned: change came with a big economic bang not a whimper. Fortunately that event occurred without an armed revolution . . . so far. The amazingly sudden, economic events occurring in East Asia could still lead to some serious social and military disturbances in that region.

1998 Ron Paul 39:47
The key element to the financial system under which we are now living is the dollar. If confidence is lost in the dollar and a subsequent free-market price for gold develops, the whole financial system is threatened. Next year, with the European currency unit (ECU) coming on line, there could be some serious adjustments for the dollar. The success of the ECU is unpredictable, but now that they are indicating some gold will be held in reserve, it is possible that this currency will get off the ground.

1998 Ron Paul 39:48
NATIONALISM However, I continue to have serious reservations regarding the ECU’s long-term success, believing that the renewed nationalism within Europe will not permit the monetary unification of countries that have generally not trusted each other over the centuries. In Germany, 70 percent of the people oppose entering into this new monetary agreement. If economic problems worsen in Europe — currently the unemployment rate in Germany and France is 12 percent — the European union may well get blamed.

1998 Ron Paul 39:49
The issue of nationalism is something that cannot be ignored. Immediately after the collapse in East Asia, Malaysia began shipping out hundreds of immigrants from Indonesia as a reaction to their economic problems. Resentment in Germany, France, and England is growing toward workers from other countries.

1998 Ron Paul 39:50
The same sentiment exists here in the United States, but it’s not quiet as bad at this particular time because our economy is doing better. But in the midst of a deep recession, the scapegoats will be found and alien workers will always be a target.

1998 Ron Paul 39:51
The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority.

1998 Ron Paul 39:52
No one has firmly assessed the Y2K problem, but it cannot bode well if a financial crisis comes near that time. Certainly a giant company like Citicorp and Travelers, who have recently merged, could really be hurt if the Y2K problem is real. Since the markets seem to be discounting this, I have yet to make up my own mind on how serious this problem is going to be.

1998 Ron Paul 39:53
WASHINGTON MENTALITY Every politician I know in Washington is awestruck by Greenspan. The article in The New Republic reflects the way many Members of Congress feel about the “success” of Greenspan over the last ten years. Add to this the fact that there is no significant understanding of the Austrian business cycle in Washington, and the likelihood of adopting a solution to the pending crisis, based on such an understanding, is remote.

1998 Ron Paul 39:54
Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent. Liberals stick to the old cliche´ that all that’s needed are more welfare benefits. They are, I’m sure, influenced by the fact that if more welfare benefits are handed out, they can count on the Federal Reserve to accommodate them. Unfortunately this will continue to motivate them to argue for a loose monetary policy.

1998 Ron Paul 39:55
The debate so often seems only to be who should get the expanded credit, the businessbanking community or the welfare recipients who will receive it indirectly through the monetization of an ever-expanding government deficit. In Washington there is a craving for power and influence, and this motivates some a lot more than their public display of concern for helping the poor.

1998 Ron Paul 39:56
Whether it’s Japan that tries to inflate their currency to get out of an economic problem, or the East Asian countries facing their crisis, or our willingness to bail out the IMF, resorting to monetary inflation is the only option being considered. We can rest assured that inflation is here to stay.

1998 Ron Paul 39:57
With daily pronouncements that inflation is dead, the stage is set for unlimited credit expansion whenever it becomes necessary. Just as deficit spending and massive budgets will continue, we can expect the falling value of the dollar, long term, to further undermine the economic and political stability of this country and the world.

1998 Ron Paul 39:58
Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 40
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Clean Needles And Risky Behavior 29 April 1998

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It makes no sense to pay somebody, pay for free needles to do something that is currently illegal. It is very questionable whether it will do any good.

1998 Ron Paul 40:2
As a physician, I would have to agree with the opposition that a clean needle certainly is better than a dirty needle. I do not think there is a question about that. But I do believe that there is a message sent that if we provide free needles to do something that we are condoning or encouraging it. But there is also a strong moral as well as an economic argument against this.

1998 Ron Paul 40:3
What we are talking about here is lowering costs of risky behavior. We are saying that we will pay for the needles to perform this risky behavior. But there is another much larger element that has not been discussed so far, and that has to do with the concept that all risky behavior be socialized; that is, through the medical system, it is assumed that those who do not participate in risky behavior must pay for the costs of the risky behavior, whether it has to do with cigarettes or whether it has to do with drugs or whether it has to do with any kind of safety.

1998 Ron Paul 40:4
So, therefore, the argument is that we have to save money in medical care costs by providing free needles. But there is another position, and that is that we might suggest that we do not pay for free needles and we might even challenge the concept that we should not be paying people and taking care of them for risky behavior, whether it is risky sexual behavior or risky behavior with drugs.

1998 Ron Paul 40:5
I think this is very clearly the problem, and I do not believe we should be socializing this behavior because, if we do, we actually increase it. If we lower the cost of anything, we increase the incidence of its use. So if the responsibility does not fall on the individual performing dangerous behavior, they are more likely to, and this is just part of it, the idea that we would give them a free needle.

1998 Ron Paul 40:6
But there is a moral argument against this as well. Why should people who do not use drugs or do not participate in dangerous sexual procedures and activities have to pay for those who do? And this is really the question, and there is no correct moral argument for this. And the economic argument is very powerful. It says that if we lower the cost, we will increase this behavior.

1998 Ron Paul 40:7
But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes. I mean, the whole tobacco argument is dealing with the same issue, that we have to pay for the costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes and, therefore, we have to come in and regulate the tobacco companies and nobody can assume responsibility for themselves.

1998 Ron Paul 40:8
Same thing with alcohol and safety. This is the reason we have so much government regulation dealing with helmet laws and seat belts and buzzers and beepers and air bags. So this concept has to be dealt with if we are ever to get to the bottom of this.

1998 Ron Paul 40:9
So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 41
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Social Security Numbers And Student Loans 29 April 1998

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

1998 Ron Paul 41:2
I rise in support of this rule. It is obviously a very fair rule because I am allowed to offer an amendment later on, so I am pleased to be able to vote for this rule. I have an amendment that I am going to offer in Title I which will be designated so that the Social Security number cannot be used for the electronic personal identifier for any of the programs in this educational bill.

1998 Ron Paul 41:3
The American people have become very worried about how often the Social Security number is being used as a national identification number, and we are working quickly toward a time where we have a national identification card. We certainly have abused the Social Security number as being the number. It was never intended that way. That is not what was intended when the Social Security was started that this number would be a universal number for everything.

1998 Ron Paul 41:4
In 1974, it was stated rather explicitly that the Social Security number should not be used for programs like this, and I would like to just quote the Privacy Act of 1974: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”

1998 Ron Paul 41:5
I think this is a good idea, because today we are very much aware of the fact that if a company, if a loaning company, or if one is going into a store to buy something, and they get one’s name and one’s Social Security number, one knows that they can call up more information about somebody than they know about themselves. I think this is a serious threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and we should be cautious about using the Social Security number. It is being used all the time.

1998 Ron Paul 41:6
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to this Congress, I was an obstetrician delivering babies, and babies cannot leave the hospital these days without a Social Security number. So they are born, get a Social Security number, they do not leave the hospital without it, and do my colleagues know that one cannot have a death certificate without a Social Security number? They are everyplace. It is an intrusion on our privacy. We do not need to use a Social Security number.

1998 Ron Paul 41:7
When I was in the Air Force, we used to have an identification number, but now, today, it is the Social Security number. Not too many years ago a law was passed here in the Congress that mandates that each State licensing agent for our automobile says that one has to have a Social Security number. So now they will be cross-checking with Social Security number and all of our driver’s license numbers. We are losing our privacy in this country. The American people know it. We do not need this number to be used in this program for it to be successful, and we should move very cautiously, and I hope I can get support for this amendment so that we do not use the Social Security number as the electronic personal identifier.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 42
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998

1998 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

1998 Ron Paul 42:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a complex amendment. It merely states that Social Security numbers cannot be used to identify the individuals who will be participating in this program.

1998 Ron Paul 42:3
This is a common practice, obviously, today. The Social Security number is used just for about everything. As a matter of fact, many Americans think way too often.

1998 Ron Paul 42:4
There are 40 Federal programs now where the Social Security number is required. Not only that, the Federal Government now has been mandating the uses of the Social Security number for similar purposes even on State programs such as obtaining our driver’s license.

1998 Ron Paul 42:5
The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act.

1998 Ron Paul 42:6
The Privacy Act concerns were expressed through this legislation in 1974 stating that, yes, we have overstepped our bounds, there is too much intrusiveness, and we are moving in the direction of a national identification card, something that is unknown and should be unheard of in a free society.

1998 Ron Paul 42:7
We should not have an identity card to carry our papers to get jobs, open bank accounts, move about the country, but we are moving rapidly in that direction. This is a token effort to make this point and require the government to use some other identification method for this program. It can be done. There is nothing sacred about the Social Security number. The program can be run without the use of Social Security.

1998 Ron Paul 42:8
I would like to just read very briefly some passages from the Privacy Act of 1974 to make my colleagues stop and think about what we are doing.

1998 Ron Paul 42:9
“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”

1998 Ron Paul 42:10
If one does not give his Social Security number, one is in big trouble in this country. One cannot even get out of the hospital if one is born without a Social Security number, and one cannot open up a savings account for a child if one does not have a Social Security number. One is not even allowed to die at this time without a Social Security number, because one needs a Social Security number on one’s death certificate. Talk about cradle to grave.

1998 Ron Paul 42:11
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual disclose his Social Security number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is listed and what uses will be made of it.” We do not have that happening. Numbers are just demanded, and too many people have complied with it, and we go along with it, but more and more Americans are getting upset with this monitoring of everything that we do through the Social Security number.

1998 Ron Paul 42:12
Every single government program is now requiring it. Like I said, there are 40, 40 programs. Immigration, think about how the immigration programs are monitored through Social Security numbers. There have been attempts to use the Social Security number to monitor people in their voting. We do not need this. We do not need more government surveillance in promoting this kind of a program. The program can survive, can work.

1998 Ron Paul 42:13
Some would argue, well, possibly, just possibly, the efficiency of the program may be diminished. That will be the argument that I will probably hear. The efficiency of the program will be diminished. Well, if this is the argument, then we are saying that we are here to protect the efficiency of the State. I see an important role for us to be here is to protect the privacy and the civil liberties of the citizen. So we are in conflict. Which should our role be, to protect privacy and civil liberties, or is it to protect the efficiency of the State?

1998 Ron Paul 42:14
Well, it is not difficult for me to figure that out, and it is not like I am saying this program would not exist, it is just saying that we will put a small amount of surveillance on this where the government is not so casual in expanding its role for the Social Security number.

1998 Ron Paul 42:15
In the Privacy Act of 1974, in the findings, they made a comment which I think is very important, and this is in 1974 when it was not really bad. “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.”

1998 Ron Paul 42:16
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a positive amendment; this is an amendment to protect civil liberties of every American.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 43
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote 29 April 1998

1998 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 44
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Claims Opposition Debate Time 5 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the legislation?

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 44:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 45
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea 5 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not so much in any objection to what the goals are. The goals are very laudable. The first time I read this resolution, I was in agreement with everything until the very end. Then I had some disagreements with it.

1998 Ron Paul 45:3
I have taken this time so I would have adequate time to explain my position and why I oppose this bill. Obviously, this country is facing a serious problem with drugs. As a physician, I can attest to it. We have major problems in this country, something should be done. But I thought it was necessary to take some time to point out that what we have done for 20 to 25 years has not been all that good. And I see this resolution as an endorsement of the status quo, not an introduction of one single new idea about how to approach this problem. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to try to get people to think about maybe an alternative some day that we might look at, because so far the spending of the money and the abuse of our civil liberties that has occurred with the war on drugs has not accomplished a whole lot.

1998 Ron Paul 45:4
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.

1998 Ron Paul 45:5
In 1937, it was decided that possibly we should restrict marijuana, even for medical use, and even then it was not assumed that this was a Federal prerogative. It was not banned, it was not outlawed. It was still assumed that it was the responsibility of the States to deal with problems of drugs and marijuana and law enforcement.

1998 Ron Paul 45:6
In 1937, and I am sure some of my conservative colleagues might be interested in this because it was the great FDR who decided to impose a great tax on marijuana, putting $100 tax on a pound of marijuana, essentially making it illegal. And even today those States who would like to legalize marijuana even for the sick and dying AIDS patients and the cancer patients are not even permitted to. It is because we have carelessly assumed that all regulation and all controls and all policing activities should be done here in Washington.

1998 Ron Paul 45:7
I am here just to suggest quite possibly our attack on drugs has not been correct, that we have possibly made some mistakes. Maybe we spent some money that we have not gotten our dollars’ worth. Maybe we are going in the wrong direction.

1998 Ron Paul 45:8
It is estimated that we have spent over $200 billion in the last 25 years fighting drugs. And yet it is the same old thing again. Play on the emotions of the people, condemn drug usage, which I do. As I said as a physician, I know they are horrible. But as a politician and somebody in the legislature, we should think about the efficiency and the effectiveness of our laws.

1998 Ron Paul 45:9
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.

1998 Ron Paul 45:10
The first “whereas” of this resolution, I strongly agree with. It says, “Whereas recently revealed statistics demonstrate America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans drug-free.” This is my point. This is conceded by everyone. We are not winning this fight, so why pursue the same policies over and over again, and especially since there are some shortcomings with the policy. Not only have they not been effective, there are some serious shortcomings, shortcomings on civil liberty and property rights and other things.

1998 Ron Paul 45:11
We ought to put the war on drugs in a proper perspective. Yes, it is easy to talk about a heroin addict and a crime committed and people narrowing in on one instance, but we ought to look at this in a proper manner.

1998 Ron Paul 45:12
There is talk that there are 20,000 deaths with illegal drugs. But that, in the best of my estimates, includes all the violent drugs which, to me, are a consequence of the war on drugs.

1998 Ron Paul 45:13
I have statistics that say there is about 6,000 people who die from overdosing and taking illegal drugs. A horrible figure. It is horrible. Nobody should be using these drugs. But let us put this in a different perspective.

1998 Ron Paul 45:14
We lose 37,000 people on highways every year, government-managed highways. And 36,000 people die each year from guns. But we do not take the guns away from the innocent people because there are gun accidents and gun deaths. It is 36,000 in comparison to 6,000.

1998 Ron Paul 45:15
There is one other figure that is astounding that was in the media, recorded in the media here the last couple of days. The medical profession has a responsibility here. It is estimated that we are losing 106,000 people a year. These are reports from 1994; 106,000 a year from drug reactions, legal prescription drugs coming from doctors.

1998 Ron Paul 45:16
If we want to go after a problem, let us go after the highways, let us go after the guns, let us go after the drug reaction. What about alcohol? There are 200,000 deaths, approximately, from alcohol. But do we come here and propose that we go back to prohibition? No. We do not. It is a serious problem. It is really the big problem.

1998 Ron Paul 45:17
Cigarette killing may be up to 400,000 a year. But if we make the suggestion that we want to go after them, then we have a President that says, yes, we will go after the kids that are taking a puff on the cigarette and apply the same rules.

1998 Ron Paul 45:18
There are 10 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed each year. It is probably higher because most of those cases do not get reported. So that is a serious problem. I mean, look for serious problems.

1998 Ron Paul 45:19
To dwell on the drug war and casually and carelessly violate civil liberties, as we so often do, and have confiscation and seizure of property that we just blow it off because we are fighting the drug war, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need some new ideas and new proposals on this drug war. I hope today to have time to make some of these suggestions on what we might do about the drug war.

1998 Ron Paul 45:20
Former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano said, not too long ago, he was comparing the drug war to the problem of alcohol, he said: The drug war is a grain of sand compared to alcohol.

1998 Ron Paul 45:21
If we look at the college issue, the overwhelming drug that is a problem on college campuses is alcohol. Yet, 99 percent of our concerns and our expression of horror is directed toward a narrower group of people; that is, on the illegal drugs.

1998 Ron Paul 45:22
Why might it be that we dwell on the illegal drugs? Alcohol of course is legal, but why would it be that maybe this Congress might not be as aggressive against the abuses of alcohol and the deaths? If we have compassion, should we show less compassion to the 200,000 people dying of alcohol deaths or the 400,000 dying from cigarette deaths? But we do.

1998 Ron Paul 45:23
It just happens that those who produce alcohol happen to come to Washington quite frequently. They make donations to candidates. They have a lobby. They do have a presence here in Washington. Not only those who make the alcohol, but what about the hotels or the restaurants?

1998 Ron Paul 45:24
I mean, if we even thought about doing anything or saying anything about alcohol, of course we would hear from the hotels and the restaurants, and maybe rightfully so, if we argue that people have a right to have a glass of wine with their dinner in their hotel or restaurant. But the point I am trying to make is that we dwell on certain things out of proportion to its danger.

1998 Ron Paul 45:25
Also, one reason why we might not talk about the tremendous abuse with alcohol is the fact that, quite possibly, a few Members of Congress actually participate in using such a thing. There are now probably 13 million people in this United States suffering from abuse or alcoholism, a serious, serious number.

1998 Ron Paul 45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.

1998 Ron Paul 45:27
It is failing, and we are not willing to stand up and say, hey, maybe we are doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to have another idea. Maybe we ought to have a new approach.

1998 Ron Paul 45:28
I think when we talk about not only looking at this outer perspective of other problems that we have in the country, but also the serious consequences of the drug laws which we all should be concerned about because it involves property rights and civil liberty rights, maybe we can get around to the point of saying maybe could there be a new approach.

1998 Ron Paul 45:29
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 46
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Wasting Money On War On Drugs 5 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 46:2
Mr. Speaker, as I said, in most of our history, the control of drug abuse has never been a Federal issue. This is only very recent. This does not diminish one’s concern. It is respecting the Constitution. It is also emphasizing the fact that the more we have centralized our control and the more that we have tried to enforce the thing at the national level, the worse the problem has gotten.

1998 Ron Paul 46:3
I have many conservatives say we have an educational problem, and all they want to do is throw more money at it. I cannot see how this is different. Yes, we have a major problem. But it gets worse, and all we do is throw more money at it with exactly the same programs.

1998 Ron Paul 46:4
My goal today is just to suggest, just to bring it to the Congress’ attention, that possibly we are not doing the right things. If we would ever come to admitting that, then maybe we will not have to suffer the abuse of how the war on drugs goes awry.

1998 Ron Paul 46:5
For instance, we have had this war on drugs, and there is no evidence even that we have been able to keep drugs out of our prisons. So maybe there is something we are doing wrong. Maybe we are treating a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Maybe the cause is not legislatively correctable. That is a possibility. Obviously there is a problem there, but we need to think about it. We need to take a consideration, and not ever to write off those of us who might say we do not endorse the current approach as being one that might not be concerned about the issue.

1998 Ron Paul 46:6
Obviously I am concerned. I have five children, and I have 13 grandchildren. I am a physician. I have a great deal of concern. But I have also been involved and I have seen people who have suffered, and, therefore, I have probably a slightly different approach to the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 46:7
But I do think that we ought to look for a minute at the harm done with the war on drugs. So often there are victims from the war on drugs that go unnoticed. How often have we seen on television, how often have we read in our newspaper of a drug bust with hooded FBI agents and hooded DEA agents barging into the wrong apartment and really tearing the place up, confiscating property of people who have never committed a crime?

1998 Ron Paul 46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.

1998 Ron Paul 46:9
Our job here is to protect the civil liberties of individuals. Yes, we ought to try to influence behavior. Yes, we ought to make laws against illegal behavior; national, when necessary, but local when the Constitution dictates it. At the rate we are going, we are making very, very little progress.

1998 Ron Paul 46:10
I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues.

1998 Ron Paul 46:11
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.

1998 Ron Paul 46:12
I would like to suggest in closing some of the things that we can consider. First, let us consider the Constitution, for instance. We have no authority to create a Federal police force. That is not in the Constitution. So we ought to consider that. It is a State problem. It is a State law enforcement problem. Most of our history, it was dealt that way.

1998 Ron Paul 46:13
I think education is very important; people who know what is going on. We should, if anything, be emphasizing the educational process. Possibly my medical background influences me into what I am going to say next; and that is, could we conceive of looking at some of this problem of addiction as a disease rather than a criminal act? We do this with alcohol. Maybe that would help the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 46:14
Is it conceivable that we are looking at a symptom that the drug problem, the drug craze, is a reflection of moral values in the society?

1998 Ron Paul 46:15
We cannot get rid of teenage illegitimacy by writing a national law against teenage pregnancy. We are not likely, we have not been able to get rid of drug usage, teenage drug usage, by writing national laws and coming down with the armed might of the Federal Government. So I do not think the current process is going to work.

1998 Ron Paul 46:16
Kids go on drugs because they are seeking happiness, they are alone, they are in broken families. This is a problem that will not be solved by more laws and a greater war on drugs. We have 80,000 Federal policemen now carrying drugs. Character is what is needed. Laws do not create character. This does not dismiss us from expressing concern about this problem, but let us not make the problem worse.

1998 Ron Paul 46:17
In 1974, Switzerland passed a law that said that the doctor could prescribe medication for addicts. I, as a physician, if an addict comes into my office and I agree to give him drugs which would support his habit, because I figure for him to go out on the street and shoot somebody for it is a little worse than me trying to talk him into a program by giving him drugs for a while, I am a criminal. I am a criminal today if I decide that somebody should use or could use marijuana if they are dying with cancer or AIDS and they are dying of malnutrition because they cannot eat. There should be a little bit of compassion in this movement.

1998 Ron Paul 46:18
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.

1998 Ron Paul 46:19
We have too many people on drugs, and this resolution makes my point. The war on drugs has failed. Let us do something different. Let us not pursue this any longer.

1998 Ron Paul 46:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 47
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack 5 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.

1998 Ron Paul 47:2
But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful.

1998 Ron Paul 47:3
I am concerned not only about the drug usage, obviously, and the fact that the war has failed, but with those things that are so negative when it comes to violation of liberties.

1998 Ron Paul 47:4
The other day there was a story in the media that said there was a child suffering from an acute attack of asthma. Now, there was another asthmatic in the class, and she did what seemed to come natural to her: She went and gave her a whiff of her nebulizer and the girl immediately came out of her acute asthma attack. She was quickly apprehended under a Federal statute saying that she was disobeying the Federal law on the use of drugs.

1998 Ron Paul 47:5
Now, it might be advisable to caution a young child about giving medications to another, but this was very obvious and very clear. She happened to have been a hero with the other students and she was certainly a hero for the girl she helped.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 48
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Support The National Right To Work Act 6 May 1998

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

1998 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for 80 percent of Americans who support the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.

1998 Ron Paul 48:2
The National Right to Work Act repeals those sections of Federal law that give union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

1998 Ron Paul 48:3
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

1998 Ron Paul 48:4
Passage of the National Right to Work Act would be a major step forward in ending Congress’ illegitimate interference in the labor markets and liberating America’s economy from heavy-handed government intervention. Since Congress created this injustice, we have the moral responsibility to work to end it, Mr. Speaker.

1998 Ron Paul 48:5
The 80 percent of Americans who support right-to-work deserve to know which Members of Congress support worker freedom. I, therefore, urge the congressional leadership, the majority of which have promised to place a National Right to Work Act on the floor, to fulfill their promise to the American people and schedule a time certain for a vote on H.R. 59.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 49
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Higher Education Amendments of 1998 6 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 because it furthers the federal stranglehold over higher education. Instead of furthering federal control over education, Congress should focus on allowing Americans to devote more of their resources to higher education by dramatically reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before this Congress. For example, the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act (HR 2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per year in a pre-paid tuition plan without having to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling more Americans to afford college. This is just one of the many fine proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans so they can afford a higher education for themselves and/or their children. Other good ideas which I have supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher education included in last year’s budget, and the administration’s HOPE scholarship proposal, of which I was amongst the few members of the majority to champion. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.

1998 Ron Paul 49:2
Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot exist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions dependent upon taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by numerous provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal funding is being used as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.

1998 Ron Paul 49:3
Federal spending, and thus federal control, are dramatically increased by HR 6. The entire bill has been scored as costing approximately $101 billion dollars over the next five years; an increase of over 10 billion from the levels a Democrat Congress Congress authorize for Higher Education programs in 1991!. Of course, actual spending for these programs may be greater, especially if the country experiences an economic downturn which increases the demand for federally-subsidized student loans.

1998 Ron Paul 49:4
Mr. Chairman, one particular objectionable feature of the Higher Education Amendments is that this act creates a number of new federal programs, some of which where added to the bill late at night when few members where present to object.

1998 Ron Paul 49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher training.” The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,” states and localities to adopt certain methods of education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and staffers.

1998 Ron Paul 49:6
As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up, some Committee members did attempt to protect the interests of the taxpayers by refusing to support authorizing this program unless the spending was offset by cuts in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who might have otherwise opposed this program supported it at the Committee mark-up because of the offset.

1998 Ron Paul 49:7
While having an offset for the teacher training program is superior to authorizing a new program, at least from an accounting perspective, supporting this program remains unacceptable for two reasons. First of all, just because the program is funded this year by reduced expenditures is no guarantee the same formula will be followed in future years. In fact, given the trend toward ever-higher expenditures in federal education programs, it is likely that the teacher training program will receive new funds over and above any offset contained in its authorizing legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 49:8
Second, and more importantly, the 10th amendment does not prohibit federal control of education without an offset, it prohibits all programs that centralize education regardless of how they are funded. Savings from defunded education programs should be used for education tax cuts and credits, not poured into new, unconstitutional programs.

1998 Ron Paul 49:9
Another unconstitutional interference in higher education within HR 6 is the provision creating new features mandates on institutes of higher education regarding the reporting of criminal incidents to the general public. Once again, the federal government is using its funding of higher education to impose unconstitutional mandates on colleges and universities.

1998 Ron Paul 49:10
Officials of the Texas-New Mexico Association of College and University Police Departments have raised concerns about some of the new requirements in this bill. Two provisions the association finds particularly objectionable are those mandating that campuses report incidents of arson and report students referred to disciplinary action on drug and alcohol charges. These officials are concerned these expanded requirements will lead to the reporting of minor offenses, such as lighting a fire in a trash can or a 19-year-old student caught in his room with a six-pack of beer as campus crimes, thus, distorting the true picture of the criminal activity level occurring as campus.

1998 Ron Paul 49:11
The association also objects to the requirement that campus make police and security logs available to the general public within two business days as this may not allow for an intelligent interpretation of the impact of the availability of the information and may compromise an investigation, cause the destruction of evidence, or the flight of an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location, date, and time for a crime may identify victims against their will in cases of sexual assault, drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The informed views of those who deal with campus crime on a daily basis should be given their constitutional due rather than dictating to them the speculations of those who sit in Washington and presume to mandate a uniform reporting system for campus crimes.

1998 Ron Paul 49:12
Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be put “on display.” For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a claim of sexual assault “* * * through the university, rather than the county prosecutor’s office, so that she could avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *” Assaulting the privacy rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral.

1998 Ron Paul 49:13
This bill also contains a section authorizing special funding for programs in areas of socalled “national need” as designated by the Secretary of Education. This is little more than central planning, based on the fallacy that omnipotent “experts” can easily determine the correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies teaches that a bureaucrat in Washington cannot determine “areas of national need.” The only way to know this is through the interaction of students, colleges, employers, and consumers operating in a free-market, where individuals can decide what higher education is deserving of expending additional resources as indicated by employer workplace demand.

1998 Ron Paul 49:14
Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 expand the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education by increasing federal control over higher education, as well as creating a new teacher training program. This bill represents more of the same, old “Washington knows best” philosophy that has so damaged American education over the past century. Congress should therefore reject this bill and instead join me in working to defund all unconstitutional programs and free Americans from the destructive tax and monetary policies of the past few decades, thus making higher education more readily available and more affordable for millions of Americans.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 50
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Police State 12 May 1998

1998 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.

1998 Ron Paul 50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.

1998 Ron Paul 50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a “rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 50:4
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.

1998 Ron Paul 50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.

1998 Ron Paul 50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

1998 Ron Paul 50:8
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

1998 Ron Paul 50:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

1998 Ron Paul 50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.

1998 Ron Paul 50:11
As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

1998 Ron Paul 50:12
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 51
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

FDIC Problem 13 May 1998

Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of the committee.

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

1998 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Chairman’s amendment and in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

1998 Ron Paul 51:2
There are two positions that one could take on this. We could have zero integration, which this amendment would do; or we could think about the market. The market would just allow it to exist.

1998 Ron Paul 51:3
Earlier, somebody quoted Hamilton as being opposed to an integration of commerce in banking. Well, of course, at that particular time in history we had the Jeffersonians, and they were strongly in support of the market and even against central banking.

1998 Ron Paul 51:4
So I think, considering all things, that I cannot get my 100 percent, and we certainly do not want zero. We need to move in a direction, so I would say this very modest request is very justified.

1998 Ron Paul 51:5
I think this FDIC insurance is something we should be concerned about, but that is a different issue for the moment. I object to that, but I do not believe this will solve the FDIC problem.

1998 Ron Paul 51:6
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.

1998 Ron Paul 51:7
This is the size of the Glass-Steagall Act, a few pages, in order to solve a problem that did not exist. But we have been living with this for all these years. And now, over these several years, we have been trying to solve the problem. Now, this is the size of the solution. This is H.R. 10, this is the version of the Committee on Commerce as well as the version of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that went to the Committee on Rules.

1998 Ron Paul 51:8
We need to look at the fundamental cause of our problems and not jump off a cliff and do the wrong thing. I strongly support the Roukema amendment.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 52
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Indonesia Crisis 19 May 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 52:1
BACKGROUND Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, neverto- end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei stock average is still down 60% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing Southeast Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stock market “crash” — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe and then to America should not be summarily dismissed.

1998 Ron Paul 52:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.

1998 Ron Paul 52:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.

1998 Ron Paul 52:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.

1998 Ron Paul 52:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all crony “capitalism.”

1998 Ron Paul 52:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion) is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. It’s duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.

1998 Ron Paul 52:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.

1998 Ron Paul 52:8
Blame is misplaced. Rarely is the Central Bank and paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes to zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen, now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.

1998 Ron Paul 52:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the IMF and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF bailout. IMF policy on aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.

1998 Ron Paul 52:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allows crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.

1998 Ron Paul 52:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the blood in the streets of Jakarta — soon to spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with it.

1998 Ron Paul 52:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to “take care” of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls results whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.

1998 Ron Paul 52:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened the Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, but it is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know; the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevails in Indonesia?

1998 Ron Paul 52:14
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.

1998 Ron Paul 52:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989 and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, and establishing sound monetary policy has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out, that won’t work, is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.

1998 Ron Paul 52:16
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 52:18
The philosophy of the free market, holds a lot of answers, yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding Southeast Asian crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 52:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing the same bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.

1998 Ron Paul 52:20
MESSAGE What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do all the countries of the world, we are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to deliberately destroy it, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.

1998 Ron Paul 52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.

1998 Ron Paul 52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 53
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

United Nations Money Came From Defense Department 20 May 1998

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL)

1998 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I would like to compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor.

1998 Ron Paul 53:2
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. One, the other side of the aisle has mentioned that this is only a small amount. We are just introducing this idea. We are only giving a couple of dollars now. It reminds me of the arguments in 1913, let us have an income tax, but it is only going to be a fraction of 1 percent. We know what happened. There are plans for what they are doing. This is the time to stop it.

1998 Ron Paul 53:3
I think another point that we ought to make is, how did they get any money already? They got it from the Defense Department. We did not even appropriate the money. They have already started it. They have used American taxpayers’ money without a direct appropriation from this Congress, and it is about time we stopped that type of legislation. That is the point. Where did the money come from? The Defense Department. It goes over into the United Nations for meddling, meddling overseas. It is taken away, literally, from defense.

1998 Ron Paul 53:4
We have a problem in this country for national defense. We have Air Force people who do not get flying time. Our men are not trained. We do not have the right equipment. We continuously spend all our money overseas, endlessly getting involved in Bosnia and Somalia, and wherever.

1998 Ron Paul 53:5
I think it is policy that needs to be addressed. It is the policy that allows our administration to do this, because there is too much complicity in allowing the United Nations to assume our sovereignty.

1998 Ron Paul 53:6
That is the point here. The American people deserve better protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more quickly than ever.

1998 Ron Paul 53:7
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy.

1998 Ron Paul 53:8
It is up to the U.S. Congress to do something about that; that is, to take away the funding. This is a great amendment. I cannot conceive of anybody voting against this amendment and pretending that this is only a little bit.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 54
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Indonesia Crisis 22 May 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, May 22, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, neverto- end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, with its “guaranteed” safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei (Tokyo) stock average is still down 57% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing East Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan — and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stocke market “crash” here — is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed.

1998 Ron Paul 54:2
ECONOMIC FALLACY Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air. New money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia — the long run — and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something nearly all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.

1998 Ron Paul 54:3
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of a correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influence the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.

1998 Ron Paul 54:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.

1998 Ron Paul 54:5
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all “crony capitalism.”

1998 Ron Paul 54:6
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion), is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. Its duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.

1998 Ron Paul 54:7
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression — a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.

1998 Ron Paul 54:8
Blame is misplace. Rarely is the Central Bank and irredeemable paper money blamed — unless a currency value goes toward zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen who are now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.

1998 Ron Paul 54:9
A much more justifiable “scapegoat” is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF-led bailout. IMF policy only aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.

1998 Ron Paul 54:10
“Crony capitalism” was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allow crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests — a mild form of fascism — than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.

1998 Ron Paul 54:11
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the discontent, with blood in the streets of Jakarta, soon spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively-sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with marshal law.

1998 Ron Paul 54:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to take care of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls result whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.

1998 Ron Paul 54:13
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened. The Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the United States is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know: the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevail in Indonesia?

1998 Ron Paul 54:14
The United States has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military does not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world — and pretend we have all the answers? Putting aside the question of whether there is proper authority or not, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The IMF is seen as an extension of the United States and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military that with the demonstrators. No government, even the questionable ones, likes to see any dissolution of governmental power. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not as if the U.S. Government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.

1998 Ron Paul 54:15
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989, and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, including the establishment of a sound monetary policy, has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out will work. It won’t work — it is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.

1998 Ron Paul 54:16
The Indonesian Government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not as good as gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, with its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board tied to the U.S. dollar is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 54:18
The philosophy of the free market holds a lot of answers — yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding East Asian crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 54:19
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing a similar bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.

1998 Ron Paul 54:20
MESSAGE What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do almost all the countries of the world. We are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar, will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to destroy it deliberately, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.

1998 Ron Paul 54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.

1998 Ron Paul 54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 55
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Can’t Vote For Amendment 4 June 1998

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, Mr. Speaker.

1998 Ron Paul 55:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Today we are having a debate on a very serious problem that does deserve our attention. We can do this by supporting this rule.

1998 Ron Paul 55:3
I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts.

1998 Ron Paul 55:4
Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs.

1998 Ron Paul 55:5
This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was changed, I now am unable to vote for it.

1998 Ron Paul 55:6
The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused.

1998 Ron Paul 55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.

1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.

1998 Ron Paul 55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.

1998 Ron Paul 55:10
Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely make things worse.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 56
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1 10 June 1998

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

1998 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not a complicated amendment. It merely redesignates the priorities of governments as they line up in the receiving end of a bankruptcy. These are unsecured debts.

1998 Ron Paul 56:2
Basically the way the law states now and the way the bill is written is that the IRS is the top government agency that is going to receive the money, and then the State and then the local government. My suggestion in my amendment is very simple and very clear and makes a very strong philosophic point, is why should we hold the IRS in such high esteem? Why should they be on top of the list? Why should the money leave the local districts and go to Washington? Why should it go into the coffers of the IRS, funding programs that are basically unconstitutional when there are so many programs that we are not doing and take it out of our school districts?

1998 Ron Paul 56:3
If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 56:4
Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 56:5
One of the arguments used against this amendment is, “Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.” Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 56:6
Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 56:7
In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed.

1998 Ron Paul 56:8
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 57
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2 10 June 1998

1998 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond by saying I certainly do recognize responsibility of the U.S. Congress in dealing with national legislation dealing with bankruptcy and that bankruptcy laws should be uniform and fair. But this does not preclude us from thinking about the particulars of a piece of legislation designating the importance of the different governmental bodies, so everything I say about emphasizing local government over Federal Government is certainly legitimate and does not contradict in any way the notion that we should not deal with this at all because certainly we have this authority to do so.

1998 Ron Paul 57:3
And it still remains to be seen with much of a cost at all involved here; I happen to think not very much, but I would like to emphasize once again the importance of dealing with cutting spending rather than always resorting to say how do we pay something, pay for something, by merely raising taxes elsewhere if we happen to work in a benefit on a program such as this.

1998 Ron Paul 57:4
So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 58
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act 11 June 1998

1998 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country’s national police force and further “justify” the federal Justice Department’s intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications.

1998 Ron Paul 58:2
Mr. Chairman, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding the notion of federal crimes and paving the way for a deluge of federal criminal justice activity. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federally “criminalizing” all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a process by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on childrelated sexual crime irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.

1998 Ron Paul 58:3
In the name of the politically popular cause of protecting children against sex crimes, the Members of Congress will vote on whether to move the Nation further down the path of centralized- Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress hoping to gain political favor with those embracing some politically popular cause. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 is no exception.

1998 Ron Paul 58:4
Who, after all, can stand on the house floor and oppose a bill which is argued to make the world safer for children with respect to crimes? It is a sad commentary when members of this body only embrace or even mention federalism when it serves their own political purposes and, at the same time, consciously ignore federalism’s implications for these politically popular causes. It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All that now seems to matter is that Congress pass a new law.

1998 Ron Paul 58:5
Crimes committed against children (as well as adults) are a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world. I know there are few things more tragic than crimes committed against young people. In fact, the types of crimes this bill attempts to federally punish are among the most despicable criminal acts committed. Undoubtedly, strong measures and penalties need to be imposed to deter and punish these criminal actors. Nevertheless, the threshold question in Congress must always be: “under what authority do we act?” Should we cease to concern ourselves about the Constitution in all that we do and moved by emotion speak only of vague theoretical outcomes?

1998 Ron Paul 58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.

1998 Ron Paul 58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.

1998 Ron Paul 58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.

1998 Ron Paul 58:9
I too find most despicable the criminal acts this bill attempts to make federal crimes, but under the U.S. Constitution criminal law jurisdiction lies with the States. This is why I oppose yet another step toward a national police state. And because I fear the bill’s implications regarding federal monitoring of voice, mail and data communications, I cannot support H.R. 3494.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 59
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Campaign Finance Reform 16 June 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform has been a major topic for months on the House floor and, I understand, will continue to be a major debate. The last time the Congress has passed any major reforms dealing with campaigning was in the 1970s, and every problem that we had back then we have today, only it is much worse. Today, in order to comply with the law, we fill out tens of thousands of pages of forms, there is total misunderstanding of what the rules and regulations are, there are numerous fines being levied against many Members and many candidates, there are many inaccuracies put into the record mainly because a lot of people cannot even understand the rules and regulations, and I would not be surprised if just about everybody who ever filled out a financial reform at one time or the other inadvertently had some inaccuracies. All the challenges to these records have always been done by opponents and usually politicized, and it has not been motivated for the best of reasons.

1998 Ron Paul 59:2
New reforms are now being proposed, and I predict they will be no more successful than the numerous rules and regulations that we imposed on candidates in the 1970s. The reason I say this is that we are treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptom, of course, is very prevalent. Everybody knows there is a lot of big money that influences politics. I understand that there is $100 million a month spent by the lobbyists trying to influence our votes on the House floor and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence our elections. So some would conclude, therefore, that is the case, we have to regulate the money, the money is the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 59:3
But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller government, less influence of the government on everything that we do in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is always being involved.

1998 Ron Paul 59:4
Not only domestically, but Congress is endlessly involved in many affairs overseas. We are involved by passing out foreign aid, getting involved in programs like the IMF and World Bank. We are interfering in internal affairs militarily in over a hundred countries at the present time. So there is a tremendous motivation for people to come here and try to influence us. They see it as a good investment.

1998 Ron Paul 59:5
More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an incentive to invest.

1998 Ron Paul 59:6
Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one’s money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse.

1998 Ron Paul 59:7
Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon.

1998 Ron Paul 59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.

1998 Ron Paul 59:9
Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 60
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Individuals with Disabilities Act 16 June 1998

1998 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Res. 399, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs, should be this Congress’ top priority.

1998 Ron Paul 60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.

1998 Ron Paul 60:3
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K–12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child’s education.

1998 Ron Paul 60:4
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children’s special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child’s parent.

1998 Ron Paul 60:5
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America’s schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Res. 399 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 61
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies 17 June 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 17, 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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 61:3
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a very rural, agriculturally-based district. My constituents are well aware of the importance of opening export markets for America’s agricultural producers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place in the RECORD this story from the Farm Bureau News in hopes that people in the Administration, as well as in this Congress will begin to reconsider destructive embargo policies which only harm our nation’s farmers and other producers including my constituents.

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.

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.”

1998 Ron Paul 61:6
President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan after those countries detonated nuclear devices. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R– Ore.) and ranking minority member Charlie Stenholm (D–Texas) have urged Clinton to exempt food and agricultural commodities from those sanctions. Pakistan is an important market for U.S. agricultural products, ranking third in purchases of U.S. wheat.

1998 Ron Paul 61:7
Sens. Dick Lugar (R–Ind.), Pat Roberts (R– Kan.), Larry Craig (R–Idaho) and Max Baucus (D–Mont.) have also asked Clinton to exclude agricultural exports from the sanctions.

1998 Ron Paul 61:8
Warfield, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, told the panel that when sanctions are imposed, agriculture typically bears the brunt through lost sales and gains a reputation as an unreliable supplier. While American agriculture loses through sanctions and embargoes, its toughest competitors win by picking up those markets.

1998 Ron Paul 61:9
Warfield noted that when the United States placed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, American farmers lost $2.3 billion in farm exports. He said the effects continue to be felt.

1998 Ron Paul 61:10
“When the United States cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, other suppliers — France, Canada, Australia and Argentina — stepped in,” Warfield said. “They expanded their sales to the Soviet Union, ensuring that U.S. sanctions had virtually no economic impact. Russia still appears to restrict purchases of American wheat, fearing the United States may again use food exports as a foreign policy weapon.”

1998 Ron Paul 61:11
Just the threat of sanctions can provoke trading partners into a retaliatory stance and threaten U.S. agricultural exports, the farm leader pointed out.

1998 Ron Paul 61:12
Warfield said Farm Bureau supports a bill (H.R. 3654) by Re. Tom Ewing (R–Ill.) that would prevent selective agricultural embargoes. The legislation, he said, would prevent useless embargoes that destroy American export markets while creating opportunities for other countries. Warfield said engagement with other nations, not sanctions and embargoes, should be the preferred option.

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.”

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 62
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Parent And Student Saving Account Act 18 June 1998

1998 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the Conference Report of the Parent and Student Saving Account Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite having been an original cosponsor, and having been quite active in seeking support, of the original House bill. I remain a strong supporter of education IRAs, which are a good first step toward restoring parental control of education by ensuring parents can devote more of their resources to their children’s education. However, this bill also raises taxes on businesses and expands federal control of education. I cannot vote for a bill that raises taxes and increases federal power, no matter what other salutary provisions are in the legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 62:2
I certainly support the provision allowing parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the excessive tax burden imposed on America’s families by Congress. Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America’s hardworking, taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these same parents!

1998 Ron Paul 62:3
I also support the provisions extending the exclusion of funds received from qualified state tuition programs, and excluding monies received from an employer to pay for an employee’s continuing education from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans to spend more of their resources on education, rather than hand their hard-earned money over to the taxman.

1998 Ron Paul 62:4
Returning control over educational resources to the American people ought to be among Congress’ top priorities. In fact, one of my objections to this bill is that is does not go nearly far enough in returning education dollars to parents. This is largely because the deposit to an education IRA must consist of after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRAs would be so much more beneficial if parents could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing contributions to be made from pretax dollars would provide a greater incentive for citizens to contribute to education IRAs for others’ underprivileged children.

1998 Ron Paul 62:5
Furthermore, education IRAs are not the most effective means of returning education resources to the American people. A much more effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at public, private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax credits will remove large numbers of families from the tax roles!

1998 Ron Paul 62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!

1998 Ron Paul 62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government” (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children’s education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation.

1998 Ron Paul 62:8
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet, this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans.

1998 Ron Paul 62:9
Moreover, because we have no practical way of knowing how many Americans will take advantage of the education IRAs, or the other education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative to those who will have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is quite possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation would have increased revenues to the Treasury by $24 million over the next eight years!

1998 Ron Paul 62:10
It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment! It is hard to see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646 — helping America’s families!

1998 Ron Paul 62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the socalled Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based “experts.”

1998 Ron Paul 62:12
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program will move America toward a national curriculum since it creates a federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with federal standards the goal of education. I ask my colleagues how does moving further toward a national curriculum restore parental control of education?

1998 Ron Paul 62:13
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.

1998 Ron Paul 62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.

1998 Ron Paul 62:15
The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools.

1998 Ron Paul 62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.

1998 Ron Paul 62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 63
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Drug-Free Workplace Act 23 June 1998

1998 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.

1998 Ron Paul 63:2
Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1999 thus further shifting the cost burden from the irresponsible drug user to the taxpayer. Allowing the cost of drug use to fall on the irresponsible drug user rather than allowing that user to socialize his or her costs upon the innocent taxpayer would be a worthwhile step in the right direction. The dangerous socialization of costs is a consequence of various Federal actions.

1998 Ron Paul 63:3
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading — in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing — increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.

1998 Ron Paul 63:4
If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same flawed policy. That is, because government “must” pay the health costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes, government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket.

1998 Ron Paul 63:5
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.

1998 Ron Paul 63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayerfunded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.

1998 Ron Paul 63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 64
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Campaign Finance Reform 23 June 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been a lot of discussion on the House floor dealing with campaign finance reform.

1998 Ron Paul 64:2
I have spoken out on this issue, and once again I want to make some comments about how I see this problem and what we might do about it. Also I want to mention an amendment that I will be bringing up.

1998 Ron Paul 64:3
I suspect we will be talking about campaign finance reform for a couple more months. I see this somewhat differently than others. Others see that all we have to do is regulate the money and we are going to solve all our problems. But all governments are prone to be influenced by special interests. That is the nature of government.

1998 Ron Paul 64:4
So the smaller government that you have, the less influence you have and the less effort there is made to influence the government. But when you have a big government, there will be a lot of people and a lot of groups that will want to influence government, and that is where I see the problem.

1998 Ron Paul 64:5
Twenty-five years ago in the 1970s, after Watergate, the Congress wrote a lot of rules and regulations. Hundreds of candidates have filled out forms and have done all kinds of things that have been very complicated but have achieved very little. The problem is every bit as bad as it was before, and most people admit that.

1998 Ron Paul 64:6
I think there is a good reason for that. They were addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. And the cause is, of course, that big government is involved in every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our economic lives, and also around the world, influencing almost every government in the world. So not only is there an incentive for business people to come here to influence our government, but there are labor groups that come to influence our government. We have international groups and other governments coming to influence us. And until that is settled, we can rest assured that we will continue to have these problems.

1998 Ron Paul 64:7
But there is another problem that I want to address, and that is the decreased interest in campaigns and elections. Thirty years ago we would have 30 some percent of the people would turn out in the primary elections. Today it is less than 20 percent. It is a steady decline. There is good reason for this because as government gets bigger and as money becomes more influential, and money talks, the little people who have their desires and their voices unheard and want to be heard, they feel very frustrated. So it is understandable and expected that there will be lower and lower turnout in our elections. That is exactly what is happening.

1998 Ron Paul 64:8
Now, why is this the case? Is it just because they are apathetic? I do not think so. I think a lot of people make wise choices and say it does not make a lot of difference; my vote does not really count because so much money is influencing what happens in Washington with legislation. And yet we have rules and laws throughout the country that make it just about impossible for anybody outside the ordinary twoparty system to be represented.

1998 Ron Paul 64:9
Twenty percent of the people do not bother registering because of the frustration, 20 percent of the people who do register, register as Independents. So that leaves about 60 percent of the vote split between Republicans and Democrats, each getting 30 percent. They are a minority. The people who are really shortchanged are the majority, that 40 percent who feel unrepresented and very frustrated about the situation.

1998 Ron Paul 64:10
How does this come about? It just happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to control every legislative body in the country, every State legislative body. And, therefore, they write rules and regulations and have high fees for people getting on ballots, and you do not have any competition. And there is lack of interest, and there is a lot of frustration.

1998 Ron Paul 64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.

1998 Ron Paul 64:12
I would like to quote from Richard Winger, who writes a letter called the Ballot Access News. He cites one of the worst examples. He says Florida now requires 242,000 valid signatures to get a minor party or Independent candidate on the ballot of any State-wide office other than President. Only one signature is permitted on each petition sheet. He goes on. And the payment that is required is $8,250.

1998 Ron Paul 64:13
This is what needs to be changed. I have an amendment to the bill that will change this. I hope all my colleagues will pay attention to it.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 65
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Every Currency Crumbles 24 June 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 24, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that James Grant has made a public warning regarding monetary crises. In an Op-Ed entitled “Every Currency Crumbles” in The New York Times on Friday, June 19, 1998, he explains that monetary crises are as old as money. Some monetary systems outlive others: the Byzantine empire minted the bezant, the standard gold coin, for 800 years with the same weight and fineness. By contrast, the Japanese yen, he points out, is considered significantly weak at 140 against the U.S. dollar now to warrant intervention in the foreign exchange markets but was 360 as recently as 1971. The fiat U.S. dollar is not immune to the same fate as other paper currencies. As Mr. Grant points out, “The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.”

1998 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, a financial publication, and editorial director of Grant’s Municipal Bond Observer and Grant’s Asia Observer. He has also authored several books including the biographical “Bernard Baruch: Adventures of a Wall Street Legend”, the best financial book of the year according to The Financial Times “Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken”, “Minding Mr. Market: Ten Years on Wall Street with Grant’s Interest Rate Observer” and “The Trouble with Prosperity: The Loss of Fear, the Rise of Speculation, and the Risk to American Savings”. He is a frequent guest on news and financial programs, and his articles appear in a variety of publications.

1998 Ron Paul 65:3
[From the New York Times, June 19, 1998]
EVERY CURRENCY CRUMBLES
(By James Grant)
Currencies, being made of paper, are highly flammable, and governments are forever trying to put out the fires. Thus a half decade before the bonfire of the baht, the rupiah and the yen, there was the conflagration of the markka, the lira and the pound. The dollar, today’s global standard of value, was smoldering ominously as recently as 1992.

1998 Ron Paul 65:4
Monetary crises are almost as old as money. What is different today is the size of these episodes. It isn’t every monetary era that features recurrent seismic shifts in the exchange values of so-called major currencies. On Wednesday morning, after coordinated American and Japanese intervention, the weakling yen became 5 percent less weak in a matter of hours.

1998 Ron Paul 65:5
People with even a little bit of money ought to be asking what it’s made of. J.S.G. Boggs, an American artist, has made an important contribution to monetary theory with his lifelike paintings of dollar bills. So authentic do these works appear — at least at first glance, before Mr. Boggs’ own signature ornamentation becomes apparent — that the Secret Service has investigated him for counterfeiting. “All money is art,” Mr. Boggs has responded.

1998 Ron Paul 65:6
Currency management is a political art. The intrinsic value of a unit of currency is the cost of the paper and printing. The stated value of a unit of currency derives from the confidence of the holder in the promises of the issuing government.

1998 Ron Paul 65:7
It cannot undergird confidence that the monetary fires are becoming six- and sevenalarmers. Writing in 1993 about the crisis of the European Rate Mechanism (in which George Soros bested the Bank of England by correcting anticipating a devaluation of the pound), a central bankers’ organization commented: “Despite its geographical confinement to Europe, it is probably no exaggeration to say that the period from late 1991 to early 1993 witnessed the most severe and widespread foreign exchange market crisis since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System 20 years ago.” But the European crisis has been handily eclipsed by the Asian one.

1998 Ron Paul 65:8
Monetary systems have broken down every generation or so for the past century. The true-blue international gold standard didn’t survive World War I. Its successor, a halfstrength gold standard, didn’t survive the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods regime — in which the dollar was convertible into gold and the other, lesser currencies were convertible into the dollar — didn’t survive the inflationary period of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

1998 Ron Paul 65:9
Today, the unnamed successor to Bretton Woods is showing its years. The present-day system is also dollar-based, but it differs from Bretton Woods in that the dollar is no longer anchored to anything. It is defined as 100 cents and only as 100 cents. Its value is derived not from a specified weight of gold, as it was up until Aug. 15, 1971, but from the confidence of the market.

1998 Ron Paul 65:10
For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands.

1998 Ron Paul 65:11
However, as Madison Avenue knows as well as Wall Street, brand loyalties are fickle. In the early 1890’s, the United States Treasury was obliged to seek a bailout from the Morgan bank. During the great inflation of the 1970’s, Italian hotel clerks, offered payments in dollars, rolled their eyes. The yen, today reckoned dangerously weak at 140 or so to the dollar, was 360 as recently as 1971. The tendency of the purchasing power of every paper currency down through the ages is to regress. Is there any good reason that the dollar, universally esteemed today, should be different?

1998 Ron Paul 65:12
None. Certainly, the deterioration of the American balance-of-payments position doesn’t bode well for the dollar’s long-term exchange rate. Consuming more than it produces, the United States must finance the shortfall. And it is privileged to be able to pay its overseas bills with dollars, the currency that it alone can legally produce. Thailand would be a richer country today if the world would accept baht, and nothing but baht, in exchange for goods and services. It won’t, of course. America and the dollar are uniquely blessed.

1998 Ron Paul 65:13
Or were. France and Germany have led the movement to create a pan-European currency, one that would compete with the dollar as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. The euro, as the new monetary brand is called, constitutes the first serious competitive threat to the dollar since the glory days of the pound sterling.

1998 Ron Paul 65:14
In a world without a fixed standard of value, a currency is strong or weak only in relation to other currencies. The dollar’s “strength,” therefore, is a mirror image of — for example — the yen’s “weakness.” It is not necessarily a reflection of the excellence of the American economy.

1998 Ron Paul 65:15
And no degree of excellence can forestall a new monetary crisis indefinitely. Some monetary systems are better than others, and some last longer than others, but each and every one comes a cropper. The bezant, the standard gold coin of the Byzantine empire, was minted for 800 years at the same weight and fineness. The gold may still be in existence (in fact — no small recommendation for gold bullion — it probably is), but the empire has fallen.

1998 Ron Paul 65:16
After the 1994 crisis involving the Mexican peso, the world’s financial establishment vowed to stave off a recurrence. Even as the experts delivered their speeches, however, Asian banks were overlending and Asian businesses were overborrowing; the creditcum- currency eruption followed in short order. Naturally, officials and editorialists are now calling for even better fire prevention systems.

1998 Ron Paul 65:17
But “stability,” the goal so sought after, is ever unattainable. The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 66
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Internet Tax Freedom Act 23 June 1998

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 23, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: “A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.” The bill’s name, “Tax Freedom,” also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington — the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated “when someone in government mentions the word ‘fairness’, grab your wallet and run for the hills.”

1998 Ron Paul 66:2
I am, nevertheless, always suspicious when a recently-crafted bill comes to the House floor not only having bypassed the Committee process but without any advance warning. Such was the case with this bill. Moreover, this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules which does not allow for amendments and which limits the debate time to twenty minutes on each side. I, in fact, was denied an opportunity to speak by those managing the limited time allowable under this process.

1998 Ron Paul 66:3
However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state’s right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the “proper” form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by “grandfathering” their taxes while excluding other States’ rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity.

1998 Ron Paul 66:4
If the intended purpose of the legislation was simply to keep the internet tax free, a three paragraph bill would have been adequate to accomplish this. Instead, H.R. 4105 is significantly more complex. It, in fact, creates a new 30-member federal commission tasked with, among other things:

1998 Ron Paul 66:5
Examining model State legislation relating to taxation of transactions using the Internet and Internet access, including uniform terminology, definitions of the transactions, services, and other activities that may be subject to State and local taxation, procedural structures and mechanisms applicable to such taxation, and a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between States regarding matters involving multiple taxation;

1998 Ron Paul 66:6
Examining a simplified system for administration and collection of sales and use tax for remote commerce, that incorporates all manner of making consumer payments, that would provide for a single statewide sales or use tax rate (which rate may be zero), and would establish a method of distributing to political subdivisions within each State their proportionate share of such taxes, including an examination of collection of sales or use tax by small volume remote sellers only in the State of origin;

1998 Ron Paul 66:7
Examining ways to simplify the interstate administration of sales and use tax on remote commerce, including a review of the need for a single or uniform tax registration, single or uniform tax returns, simplified remittance requirements, and simplified administrative procedures; and

1998 Ron Paul 66:8
Examining the need for an independent third party collection system that would utilize the Internet to further simplify sales and use tax administration and collection;

1998 Ron Paul 66:9
These H.R. 4105-established “duties” suggest that the Commission’s real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of “Tax Freedom” as the bill’s name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 67
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Issue Ads 14 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

1998 Ron Paul 67:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE) for offering it.

1998 Ron Paul 67:3
Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order to protect this right.

1998 Ron Paul 67:4
There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people’s money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.

1998 Ron Paul 67:5
So I think it is a very important amendment and we should pay close attention to this to make sure that we pass this amendment. The problem with attacking big money without knowing why there is big money involved in politics I think is the problem that we face. Big money is a problem. They are spending $100 million a month to lobby us in the Congress and hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign, but nobody ever talks about why they are doing it.

1998 Ron Paul 67:6
There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved.

1998 Ron Paul 67:7
But what is wrong with people spending their own money to come here and fight for their freedom? What if they are a right-to-life group? What if they are a pro-gun-ownership group? What if they are a pro-property-ownership group? Why should they not be able to come and spend the money like the others have?

1998 Ron Paul 67:8
It just seems like they have been able to become more effective here in the last few years, and it seems like now we have to clamp down on them because they have an effective way to come here and fight for some of their freedoms back again.

1998 Ron Paul 67:9
So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems.

1998 Ron Paul 67:10
So I think openness and reporting requirements to let people know where we are getting the money, let the people decide if we are taking too much from one group. But to come down hard and attack on individual liberty and the right for people to spend their money and the right for the people to distribute voters guides, I cannot say see how that is going to solve any problems. I mean, what are we doing here? I think it is total foolishness.

1998 Ron Paul 67:11
So I strongly endorse this amendment, and let us hope we can pass this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 67:12
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 68
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. Campbell 14 July 1998

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 69
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. DeLay 14 July 1998

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. PAUL was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 70
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. Doolittle 14 July 1998

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 71
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. Campbell 14 July 1998

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 72
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. Doolittle 14 July 1998

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. SHIMKUS). The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. PAUL was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

1998 Ron Paul 72:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE).

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 73
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. Ganske 14 July 1998 Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 74
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Rep. DeLay 14 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY).

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 75
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 75:1
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

1998 Ron Paul 75:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing an establishment of Federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses.

1998 Ron Paul 75:3
This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

1998 Ron Paul 75:4
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver’s license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy– Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver’s license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment.

1998 Ron Paul 75:5
My fellow colleagues, make no doubt about this, this is a national I.D. card. We do not need it. Please join me in an effort to stop it.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 76
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, July 15, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

1998 Ron Paul 76:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendment rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!

1998 Ron Paul 76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.

1998 Ron Paul 76:4
The establishment of a national standard for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is forced to conform their birth certificates or drivers’ licenses to federal standards, it is unlikely they will not comply when failure to conform to federal specifications means none of that state’s residents may get a job, receive Social Security, or even leave the state by plane? Thus, rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing states into complying with federal dictates.

1998 Ron Paul 76:5
Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.

1998 Ron Paul 76:6
I ask my colleagues what would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to America would soon have the power to demand that all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID?

1998 Ron Paul 76:7
If the disapproval of the Founders is not sufficient to cause my colleagues to support this legislation, then perhaps they should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federallyapproved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people.

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.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 77
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

1998 Ron Paul 77:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, because it is seriously flawed. Although well motivated, the problem we are dealing with is the breakdown of the American family, respect for life and abortion, not too much freedom to travel between States.

1998 Ron Paul 77:3
Having delivered nearly 4,000 babies in my three decades of medical practice and having seen the destructiveness of abortion, I strongly agree that legalized abortion is the most egregious of all current social policies. It clearly symbolizes the moral decline America has experienced in the last 30 years.

1998 Ron Paul 77:4
However, Federal law restricting interstate travel, no matter how well intended, will serve no useful purpose, will not prevent abortions, and, indeed, will have many unintended consequences.

1998 Ron Paul 77:5
It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into effect at approximately the same time that the Department of Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be transporting a teenager.

1998 Ron Paul 77:6
There is already a legal vehicle for dealing with this problem. Many States currently prohibit adults from taking underage teenagers across State lines for the purpose of marriage. States have reciprocal agreements respecting this approach. This is the proper way to handle this problem.

1998 Ron Paul 77:7
Most importantly, this bill fails to directly address the cause of the problem we face regarding abortion, which is the absurdity of our laws permitting the killing of an infant 1 minute before birth, or even during birth, and a doctor getting paid for it, while calling this same action murder 1 minute after birth.

1998 Ron Paul 77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.

1998 Ron Paul 77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

1998 Ron Paul 77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

1998 Ron Paul 77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

1998 Ron Paul 77:12
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

1998 Ron Paul 77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.

1998 Ron Paul 77:14
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to a point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

1998 Ron Paul 77:15
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 3682.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 78
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Right To Work Act 15 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place!

1998 Ron Paul 78:2
Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress, only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states’ rights.

1998 Ron Paul 78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.

1998 Ron Paul 78:4
No wonder the overwhelming majority of the American people support the National Right to Work Act, as shown both by polling results and by the many postcards and petitions my office has received asking for Congressional action on this bill.

1998 Ron Paul 78:5
I once again thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this bill.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 79
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Exchange Stabilization Fund 16 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

1998 Ron Paul 79:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I would have to say this amendment is a very modest approach to a serious problem. I see no reason for the Exchange Stabilization Fund to exist. There is no constitutional authority for it. There is no economic benefit for it. It is detrimental to the people.

1998 Ron Paul 79:3
The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest, just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight. The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions, probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.

1998 Ron Paul 79:4
Where did the money come from? It came from confiscation, not through taxation, but confiscating gold from the American people, revaluing the gold, taking the net profits, putting it into the Exchange Stabilization Fund, as well as the initial financing of the IMF.

1998 Ron Paul 79:5
They tried to reassure us and say, well, this is not an injury to our appropriations process. We do not appropriate money. We do not lose money. Well, that is precisely the problem. We are supposed to have responsibility. It is not the kind of amendment I want.

1998 Ron Paul 79:6
We should be talking about this in terms of a free society. Certainly, if we had a sound currency, under a sound currency we do not have all this kind of mischief going on. And certainly, if we had a lot of respect for the Constitution and actually knew something about the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, we would say, where do we get this authority to prop up other countries and other currencies at the expense of the American taxpayers?

1998 Ron Paul 79:7
This amendment, if we want to give a lot of foreign aid away, this does not preclude it, it just slows us up a little bit and makes us think about it.

1998 Ron Paul 79:8
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 79:9
This is why we need more openness. Because, ultimately, this is a threat to the dollar. The dollar, when it is devalued, it hurts the American taxpayer. It is a hidden tax. When we devalue the dollar, we are spending money indirectly. We take away wealth and purchasing power from the American people. And it is a sinister tax. It is the most sinister of all taxes.

1998 Ron Paul 79:10
That is why the Exchange Stabilization Fund should either be abolished or put on the appropriations process. If we cannot do that or will not do that, we have to at least pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and say, yes.

1998 Ron Paul 79:11
If we are going to give away $250 million per country for propping up a foreign currency or foreign country or propping up some banks that made loans overseas or propping up our competitors to our own industries, we have to at least know about it.

1998 Ron Paul 79:12
I do not think this is much of an amendment. The fact that the President threatens to veto this bill just because we are acting responsibly, this is just a small step in the right direction. I see no reason why we cannot pass this amendment.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 79:14
So the original purpose under fixed exchange rate no longer exists. There is no need to prop up a dollar under floating currencies. This is used precisely to bail out special privileged people who have made loans overseas, special corporations around the country, special countries that are our competitors, and it is a way of getting around the Congress, it is a way of devaluing the dollar, putting more pressure on the dollar and hurting the American people.

1998 Ron Paul 79:15
If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be responsible for our acts.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 80
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Matagorda Police 100 Club 17 July 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, July 17, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, when we go on the August break I will attend a number of events back in my district and one which I will be very proud to attend will be the Matagorda County 100 Club Awards banquet. This group provides assistance to the families of law enforcement personnel who are slain on the job.

1998 Ron Paul 80:2
I can think of no better example of how people can freely work together to provide assistance to those who are in need, and who are most deserving of the help of their neighbors. Officers slain in duty give their lives to protect the liberties of the citizens. Our Nation has a strong tradition of local law enforcement, a tradition which would fail without the courage and willingness of men and women to put their lives on the line by working as state and local law enforcement agents.

1998 Ron Paul 80:3
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend the 100 Clubs and the brave men and women who serve as local law enforcement agents.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 81
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program 20 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject H.R. 3874, a bill reauthorizing the Women’s, Infant, and Children’s (WIC) program and other childhood nutrition programs, and the flawed redistributionist, welfare state model that lies behind this bill. Although the goals of this legislation are noble, the means toward achieving the goals embodied therein are unconstitutional and ineffective.

1998 Ron Paul 81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.

1998 Ron Paul 81:3
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of my colleagues, understand that private charities are also much better able to target assistance to the truly needy than government programs, which are burdened with bureaucratic rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed to protect the “due process” rights of recipients, which cannot be adequately changed to meet unique individual circumstances. Thus, many people who are genuinely needy do not receive needed help. In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Private charities can also be more effective because they do not have to fulfill administrative requirements, such as the WIC program’s rebate system, which actually divert resources from the needy.

1998 Ron Paul 81:4
Private charities are also able to place an emphasis upon reformation of personal behavior while not imposing the controls on personal life that government programs, such as WIC, impose on the program recipients. When a pregnant woman signs up to receive WIC vouchers, she is trading away a large amount of her personal freedom. Her choices of where to shop will be restricted to WIC-approved vendors and her choice of what foods to buy will be restricted to those foods which match the WIC nutrition specifications. WIC recipients are also required to participate in WIC parenting and nutrition classes.

1998 Ron Paul 81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!

1998 Ron Paul 81:6
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their products included in this program reveals the extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare. Many corporations have made a tidy profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding their competitors in the process. For example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal government is the largest purchaser of infant formula in the nation.

1998 Ron Paul 81:7
According to the Congressional Research Service, food vendors participating in WIC received 9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75% of the total funds spent on the WIC program! This fiscal year, producers of food products approved by the federal government for purchase by WIC participants are expected to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars! Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my office to discuss WIC were not advocates for the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons for corporate interests!

1998 Ron Paul 81:8
Any of my colleagues who doubt that these programs serve the interests of large corporations should consider that one of the most contentious issues debated at Committee mark-up was opposition to an attempt to allow USDA to purchase non-quote peanuts (currently the only peanuts available for sale are farmers who have a USDA quota all other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US) for school nutrition programs. Although this program would have saved the American taxpayers $5 million this year, the amendment was rejected at the behest of supporters of the peanut lobby. A member of my staff, who appropriately asked why this amendment could not pass with overwhelming support, was informed by a staffer for another member, who enthusiastically supports the welfare state, that the true purpose of this program is to benefit producers of food products, not feed children.

1998 Ron Paul 81:9
The main reason supporters of a free and moral society must oppose this bill is because federal welfare programs crowd out the more efficient private charities for two reasons. First, the taxes imposed on the American people in order to finance these programs leave taxpayers with fewer resources to devote to private charity. Secondly, the welfare state erodes the ethic of charitable responsibility as citizens view aiding the poor as the government’s role, rather than a moral obligation of the individual.

1998 Ron Paul 81:10
The best way to help the poor is to dramatically cut taxes thus allowing individuals to devote more of their own resources to those charitable causes which better address genuine need. I am a cosponsor of HR 1338, which raises the charitable deduction and I believe Congress should make awakening the charitable impulses of the American people by reducing their tax burden one of its top priorities. In fact, Congress should seriously consider enacting a dollar-per-dollar tax credit for donations to the needy. This would do more to truly help the disadvantaged than a tenfold increase in spending on the programs in HR 3874.

1998 Ron Paul 81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 82
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 21, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.

1998 Ron Paul 82:2
As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”

1998 Ron Paul 82:3
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?

1998 Ron Paul 82:4
Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.

1998 Ron Paul 82:5
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.

1998 Ron Paul 82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.

1998 Ron Paul 82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.

1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 83
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Patient Protection Act 24 July 1998

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

1998 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

1998 Ron Paul 83:2
I rise in support of the rule. Under the circumstances, the rule is very fair. It offers an opportunity for our side to vote for the Patient Protection Act as well as a vote for the opposition. I think that is quite fair, so I strongly support the rule.

1998 Ron Paul 83:3
I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues one particular part of our bill that I think is very important and addresses a problem I see as being very serious.

1998 Ron Paul 83:4
In 1996, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill allowed for a national identifier and a national data bank to control all our medical records at a national level. This is very dangerous. In a bill that is called the Patient Protection Act, obviously the best thing we can do is protect patient privacy. If we do not, we interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and this is a disaster.

1998 Ron Paul 83:5
This whole concept of a national identifier — the administration is already working to establish this — is dangerous and we must do whatever is possible to stop it.

1998 Ron Paul 83:6
I compliment the authors of this bill to prohibit this national medical data bank.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 84
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Patient Protection Act of 1998 24 July 1998

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, July 24, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I cannot vote for the Patient Protection Act (H.R. 4250). However, I would first like to express my support for two of the bill’s provisions, relating to Medical Savings Accounts and relating to the proposed national health ID.

1998 Ron Paul 84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”

1998 Ron Paul 84:3
While I was not here in 1996 when the medical ID was authorized, it is my understanding that this provision was part of a large bill rushed through Congress without much debate. I am glad that Congress has decided to at least take a second look at this proposal and its ramifications. I am quite confident that, after Congress hears from the millions of Americans who object to a national ID, my colleagues will do the right thing and pass legislation forbidding the federal government from instituting a “uniform standard health identifier.”

1998 Ron Paul 84:4
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress is addressing the subject of health care in America, for the American health care system does need reform. Too many Americans lack access to quality health care while millions more find their access to medical care blocked by a “gatekeeper,” an employee of an insurance company or a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) who has the authority to overrule the treatment decisions of physicians!

1998 Ron Paul 84:5
An an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience, I find it outrageous that any insurance company bureaucrat could presume to stand between a doctor and a patient. However, in order to properly fix the problem, we must understand its roots. The problems with American health care coverage are rooted in the American tax system, which provides incentives for employers to offer first-dollar insurance benefits to their employees, while providing no incentives for individuals to attempt to control their own health care costs. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that those paying the bill would eventually seize control over personal health care choices as a means of controlling costs.

1998 Ron Paul 84:6
Because this problem was created by distortions in the health care market that took control of the health care dollar away from the consumer, the best solution to this problem is to put control of the health care dollar back into the hands of the consumer. We also need to rethink the whole idea of first-dollar insurance coverage for every medical expense, no matter how inexpensive. Americans would be more satisfied with the health care system if they could pay for their routine expenses with their own funds, relying on insurance for catastrophic events, such as cancer.

1998 Ron Paul 84:7
An excellent way of moving toward a health care system where the consumer is in charge is through Medical Savings Accounts (MSA’s). I enthusiastically endorse those provisions of this bill that expand access to MSA’s. It may be no exaggeration to say that MSA’s are vital to preserving the private practice of medicine.

1998 Ron Paul 84:8
MSA’s provide consumers the freedom to find high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. MSA’s allow consumers to benefit when they economize in choosing health care so they will be more likely to make informed health care decisions such as seeking preventive care and, when possible, negotiate with their providers for the lowest possible costs. Most importantly, MSA’s are the best means available to preserve the patient’s right to choose their doctor and the treatment that best meets their needs, free from interference by an insurance company or an HMO.

1998 Ron Paul 84:9
Mr. Speaker, all those concerned with empowering patients should endorse H.R. 4250’s provisions lifting all caps on how many Americans may purchase an MSA and repealing federal regulations that discourage Americans from using MSA’s. For example, a provision in the tax code limits the monthly contribution to the MSA to one-twentieth of the MSA’s yearly amount. Thus, MSA holders have a small portion of their yearly contribution accessible to them in the early months of the year. The Patient Protection Act allows individuals to make the full contribution to their MSA at any time of the year, so someone who establishes an MSA in January does not have to worry if they get sick in February.

1998 Ron Paul 84:10
This legislation also allows both employers and employees to contribute to an employee’s MSA. It lifts the arbitrary caps on how one can obtain MSA’s and expands the limits on the MSA deductible. Also it provides that possession of an MSA satisfies all mandated benefits laws as long as individuals have the freedom to purchase those benefits with their MSA.

1998 Ron Paul 84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.

1998 Ron Paul 84:12
Perhaps the biggest danger these regulations pose is ratification of the principle that guaranteeing a patients’ access to physicians is the proper role for the government, thus opening the door for further federal control of the patient-physician relationship. I ask my physician-colleagues who support this regulation, once we have accepted the notion that federal government can ensure patients have access to our services, what defense can we offer when the government places new regulations and conditions on that access?

1998 Ron Paul 84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.

1998 Ron Paul 84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 85
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Offers An Amendment 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 86
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Improve Ballot Access 30 July 1998

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

1998 Ron Paul 86:1
POINT OF ORDER Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

1998 Ron Paul 86:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a perfecting amendment, it is not in the nature of a substitute, and that has been cleared in the Committee on Rules.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk designated it as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

1998 Ron Paul 86:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, both amendments that I have should be perfecting amendments, and if permissible, I ask unanimous consent that they both be accepted as such.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman is amending the Shays-Meehan amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted by the rules.

1998 Ron Paul 86:4
Mr. PAUL. I thank the Chair for the clarification.

1998 Ron Paul 86:5
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 86:6
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that deals with equity and fairness, so I would expect essentially no opposition to this.

1998 Ron Paul 86:7
It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the ballot.

1998 Ron Paul 86:8
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.

1998 Ron Paul 86:9
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943. There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943, because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment would correct this.

1998 Ron Paul 86:10
Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.

1998 Ron Paul 86:11
Now, this is very important also because it increases interest and increases turnout. Today, turnout has gone down every year in the last 20 or 30 years, there has been a steady decline in interest. This amendment would increase the interest and increase the turnout.

1998 Ron Paul 86:12
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election, where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this, making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be accepted.

1998 Ron Paul 86:13
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 87
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Ballot Access 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 87:2
My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.

1998 Ron Paul 87:3
For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics. They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.

1998 Ron Paul 87:4
If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial to the process.

1998 Ron Paul 87:5
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 88
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Ballot Access — Part 2 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 88:2
The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.

1998 Ron Paul 88:3
Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures. A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major candidate.

1998 Ron Paul 88:4
There is something distinctly unfair about this. This is un-American. We have the authority to do it. This is the precise time to do it. We are dealing with campaign reform, and they are forcing these minor candidates to spend unbelievable amounts of money. They are being excluded. They are 42 percent of the people in this country. They are the majority, when we divide the electorate up. They deserve representation, too.

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

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

1998 Ron Paul 88:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 89
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Offers An Amendment 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 90
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Offers An Amendment 30 July 1998

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

1998 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 90:2
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months, years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot. Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50 ballots, and they are purposely excluded.

1998 Ron Paul 90:3
This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers’ money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies for taxpayers’ funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be allowed in the debate.

1998 Ron Paul 90:4
I cannot think of anything that could boost the interest in the debates more. Fewer and fewer people are watching debates. There was the lowest turnout, the lowest listening audience to the debates in the last-go around. It was the lowest since we have had these debates on television.

1998 Ron Paul 90:5
Forty-two percent of the people turned out and were interested in the debates prior to the election in 1992, and we had a major candidate, Ross Perot. Of course, the only reason he was able to achieve a significant amount of attention was because he happened to be a billionaire. That is not fair. In 1996, they did a poll right before the election to find out who was paying attention. We were getting ready to pick the President of the United States. It dropped to 24 percent.

1998 Ron Paul 90:6
If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government, we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 91
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

An Appropriate Amendment 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is always interesting that when we have an appropriate amendment that seems to catch the attention of the Members, that it is probably not the appropriate time to bring it up, and that we should hold hearings and do it some other day.

1998 Ron Paul 91:2
We have been spending months, and I believe both sides of the aisle have been very sincere in their efforts to clarify and to improve our election process. I think this would be a tremendous benefit to the congressional candidates as well, because there would be more interest. People are not even listening to the debates. If they are not even willing to listen to the presidential debates, how can they get interested in Senate races and in House races?

1998 Ron Paul 91:3
The rating of the debates in 1996 was the lowest in 36 years. The Vice-Presidential debate, we cannot even get people to listen to the Vice-Presidential debates. It had dropped off 50 percent from 1992. In 1992, there was more interest. It is because we happened to have a billionaire interested, and he was able to stimulate some people in some debates.

1998 Ron Paul 91:4
All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority under our laws to do this.

1998 Ron Paul 91:5
So I would strongly suggest if Members are fair-minded and think they would like more interest, or if they want to continue the way we are going now, we are going to have less and less people interested. People are really tired of it. The American people do not understand this debate, but they do understand they would like to have somebody speak up for them.

1998 Ron Paul 91:6
Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being allowed to appear.

1998 Ron Paul 91:7
This does not mean those candidates more on the right would happen to be in the debate, or more on the left. It would open it up. This is fair-minded, it is proper, it is a good place to do it. It is a chance to vote on it, and I ask for support on this amendment.

1998 Ron Paul 91:8
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 92
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote 30 July 1998

1998 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 93
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Banking Regulations 4 August 1998

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

1998 Ron Paul 93:2
Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this bill. I do not support legislation casually here, and have thought this through. I voted against this bill the first time it went through, and I was one of a few. But it is a better bill now than it was before.

1998 Ron Paul 93:3
I am a supporter of the free market, and I do not believe you can achieve equity by raising taxes and putting more regulations on those who do not have regulations and who do not have taxes.

1998 Ron Paul 93:4
For this reason, I argued the case that instead of equity being achieved by taxing credit unions or making it more difficult for them to survive with more regulations, the best thing we should do now is talk about at least the smaller banks that compete with credit unions, to lower their taxes, get rid of their taxes and get rid of the regulation.

1998 Ron Paul 93:5
Precisely because we dealt with the CRA function in the Senate is the reason that I can support this bill. CRA does great deal of harm to the very people who claim they want CRA to be in the bill. CRA attacks the small, marginal bank that is operating in communities that have poor people in them. But if you compel them to make loans that are not prudent and to make loans that are risky, you are doing precisely the opposite of what we should do for these companies.

1998 Ron Paul 93:6
We should work to lower taxes, not only on the credit unions, and lower regulations. We must do the same thing for the banks. We must lower the taxes and get rid of these regulations in order for the banks to remain solvent and that we do not have to bail the banks out like we have in the past. But the regulations do not achieve this.

1998 Ron Paul 93:7
This is a bill that I think really comes around to achieving and taking care of a problem and protecting everybody interested. But I am quite convinced that this is still not a fair bill, a fair approach, because we have not yet done enough for our community bankers. We must eventually apply these same principles of less regulations and less taxes to the small banker. Then we will provide a greater service to the people that are their customers, and we will certainly be allowing the poor people a greater chance to achieve a loan.

1998 Ron Paul 93:8
Since I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions and was the first one in this congress to introduce multiple common bonds for credit unions in the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, I am happy to speak in support of the passage of H.R. 1151 here today. Having argued forcefully against the imposition of new regulations imposed upon credit unions, I congratulate the senate for not increasing the regulatory burden on credit unions in an attempt to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions.

1998 Ron Paul 93:9
A better approach is to lead the congress toward lower taxes and less regulation — on credit unions, banks and other financial institutions. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the senate, takes us one step in the right direction of less government regulation restricting individual choice. We must continue on the path of fewer regulations and lower taxes.

1998 Ron Paul 93:10
These regulations add to the costs of operations of financial institutions. This cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher interest rates and additional fees. These regulations impose a disproportionate burden on smallers institutions, stifles the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector, and contributes to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. Consumers need additional choices, not congressionallyimposed limits on choices.

1998 Ron Paul 93:11
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulation can only be larger . . . The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.

1998 Ron Paul 93:12
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. For each $1 million in asset, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30–65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.

1998 Ron Paul 93:13
We need to work together now to reduce the regulatory burden on all financial institutions. The IBAA study identified the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. We need to reduce the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks.

1998 Ron Paul 93:14
Let’s all work together now, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, to reduce their regulatory burden. Credit unions have demonstrated that fewer regulations contribute to lower costs passed on to consumers and greater consumer choice. Let’s extend that model for banks and other financial institutions.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 94
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring 4-H Programs And Gold Star Recipients 4 August 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 4, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Brazoria County 4–H will hold an awards program on the 14th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.

1998 Ron Paul 94:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Deidrea Harris, Josh Weber, Amanda Tacquard, and Allison Sauer. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 95
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Gold Star Awards 5 August 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 5, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Matagorda County 4-H will hold an awards program on the 20th of August and this is a very important event Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I have, in the past, pointed out how important an organization 4-H truly is for those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities. As I have said in the past Mr. Speaker, one of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. I believe that this mission is so critical that, earlier this year, I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4-H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorney we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.

1998 Ron Paul 95:2
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the following winners of the Gold Star, the highest award possible at the county level, for achievements in competition at state levels, leadership ability, community service and years of service. They are: Kim Evans, Courtney Wallis and Lindsey Kubecka. Again, I want to commend these young people for their achievements.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 96
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

English Language Fluency Act 10 September 1998

1998 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal Government’s role in education.

1998 Ron Paul 96:2
I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people in those communities.

1998 Ron Paul 96:3
The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.

1998 Ron Paul 96:4
Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control be restored.

1998 Ron Paul 96:5
In order to restore parental control of education I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for elementary and secondary education expenses. This bill places parents back in charge and is thus the most effective education reform bill introduced in this Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 97
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Worldwide Financial Crisis 10 September 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the largest of all bubbles is now bursting. This is a worldwide phenomenon starting originally in Japan 9 years ago, spreading to East Asia last year, and now significantly affecting U.S. markets.

1998 Ron Paul 97:2
All financial bubbles are currency driven. When central banks generously create credit out of thin air speculation, debt, and malinvestment result. Early on the stimulative effect is welcomed and applauded as the boom part of the cycle progresses. But illusions of wealth brought about by artificial wealth creation end when the predictable correction arrives. Then we see the panic and disappointment as wealth is wiped off the books.

1998 Ron Paul 97:3
These events only occur when governments and central banks are given arbitrary authority to create money and credit out of thin air. Paper money systems are notoriously unstable; and the longer they last, the more vulnerable they are to sudden and sharp downturns.

1998 Ron Paul 97:4
All countries of the world have participated in this massive inflationary bubble with the dollar leading the way. Being a political and economic powerhouse, U.S. policy and the dollar has had a major influence throughout the world and, in many ways, has been the engine of inflation driving world financial markets for years.

1998 Ron Paul 97:5
But economic law dictates that adjustments will be made for all the bad investment decisions based on erroneous information about interest rates, the money supply, and savings.

1998 Ron Paul 97:6
The current system eventually promotes overcapacity and debt that cannot be sustained. The result is a slump, a recession, or even a depression. When the government makes an effort to prevent a swift, sharp correction, the agony of liquidation is prolonged and deepened. This is what is happening in Japan and other Asian countries today. We made the same mistake in the 1930s.

1998 Ron Paul 97:7
A crisis brought on by monetary inflation cannot be aborted by more monetary inflation or the IMF bailouts favored by the American taxpayer. It may at times delay the inevitable, but eventually, the market will demand liquidation of the malinvestment, excessive debt, and correction of speculative high prices as we have seen in the financial markets.

1998 Ron Paul 97:8
All this could have been prevented by a sound monetary system, one without a central bank that has monopoly power over money and credit and pursues central economic planning. My concern is profound. The retirement and savings of millions of Americans are jeopardized. Economic growth could be reversed sharply and quickly as it already has in the Asian countries. Budget numbers will need to be sharply revised.

1998 Ron Paul 97:9
The Federal Reserve hints at lower interest rates which means more easy credit. This may be construed as a positive for the market, but it only perpetuates a flawed monetary system.

1998 Ron Paul 97:10
Protecting the dollar is our job here in the Congress, and we are not paying much attention. Although turmoil elsewhere in the world has given a recent boost to the dollar, signs are appearing that the dollar, unbacked by anything of real value, is vulnerable. Setting a standard for the dollar with real value behind it can restore trust to the system and will become crucial in solving our problems, soon to become more apparent.

1998 Ron Paul 97:11
The sooner we understand the nature of the problem and start serious discussions on how to restore soundness to our money the sooner we can secure the savings, investments, and retirements of all Americans.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 98
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas 10 September 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 10, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 13 I will have the distinct pleasure of being the keynote speaker at the opening ceremonies for POW/MIA Recognition week in Matagorda County, Texas.

1998 Ron Paul 98:2
This event will be sponsored by Matagorda County Veterans Services as a part of POW/ MIA Recognition Week. Mr. Speaker, as a United States Air Force veteran I am well aware of the sacrifices which brave young men are required to make during times of war. Perhaps no better example of these sacrifices can be found than those endured by Prisoners of War and those Missing In Action. From “Hanoi Hilton” to “Saving Private Ryan” we have seen the dramatic horrors that war brings, but behind the stories, beyond the silver screen, there are real Private Ryan’s who never do make it home. And there are families broken, lives affected and communities touched, by the real sacrifices of the real heroes who fight America’s wars.

1998 Ron Paul 98:3
I believe that no young man or woman has ever entered the military hoping to face combat, but most answer the call because they believe in the liberties which our nation was founded upon, and they see our nation as a beacon of liberty. It is to these young people that I wish to bring honor and it is to those who have become Missing, or are held Prisoner, to whom I believe this nation must pledge ongoing fealty. Specifically, I would like to memorialize U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Parks, from Matagorda County, who died while in captivity in Vietnam.

1998 Ron Paul 98:4
Mr. Speaker, our nation has suffered a great burden as a result of the wars of this century, in some instances it has nearly been torn apart by these wars, but none have suffered more than those who are missing, and their families, many of whom still hope against hope that they will one day return, either to resume lives or to be granted a proper burial. Our nation still has some 93,000 individuals who are unaccounted for, some of whom are believed to be POW’s even now during a time of relative peace. Mr. Speaker, I believe we owe it to these men, and to their families, to get a full accounting for every person which this nation has sent abroad. I believe we owe it to our nation to bring each and every one of them home.

1998 Ron Paul 98:5
With the opening of archives from the former Soviet Union we have seen evidence of how young American servicemen were allowed to become political chess pieces for a totalitarian regime. It is due to the efforts of groups such as Matagorda County Veterans Services that we can honestly say “You Are Not Forgotten” to those who have sacrificed so much. And it is critical that we keep these memories forever etched in our minds so that we might also recall the mantra “never again.” Never again should Americans be forced to face the brutalities of war, such as those faced in Prisoner of War camps, and never again should we allow brave Americans to go missing in action.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 99
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Head Start Program 14 September 1998

1998 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 2206, which reauthorizes the Head Start program, as well as the Community Services Block Grant program and the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). While the goals of Head Start and the Community Services Block Grant program are certainly noble, the means these programs use to accomplish these goals (confiscating monies from one group of citizens and sending them to another group of citizens in the form of federal funding for Washington-controlled programs) are immoral and ineffective. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to fund any programs concerning child-rearing or education. Under the constitutional system, these matters are left solely in the hands of private citizens, local government, and the individual states.

1998 Ron Paul 99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.

1998 Ron Paul 99:3
When the federal government becomes involved in funding a program such as Head Start, it should at least respect local autonomy by refraining from interfering with the ability of local communities to fashion a program that suits their needs. After all, federal funding does not change the fact that those who work with a group of children on a daily basis are the best qualified to design a program that effectively serves those children. Therefore, I must strongly object to the provisions in S. 2206 that requires the majority of Head Start classroom teachers to have an Associate or Bachelors degree in early childhood education by 2003. This provision may raise costs and/ or cause some good Head Start teachers to lose their positions simply because they lack the credentials a Washington-based “expert” decided they needed to serve as a Head Start instructor.

1998 Ron Paul 99:4
Mr. Speaker, if programs such as Head Start where controlled by private charities, their staffers would not have to worry about diverting valuable resources away from their mission to fulfill the whims of Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 99:5
I am also disappointed that S. 2206 does not contain the language passed by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce freeing Head Start construction from the wasteful requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon not only drives up construction costs, it effectively ensures that small construction firms, many of which are minorityowned, cannot compete for federal construction contracts. Repealing Davis-Bacon requirement for Head Start construction would open up new opportunities for small construction companies and free up millions of taxpayers dollars that could be used to better America’s children.

1998 Ron Paul 99:6
Congress should also reject S. 2206 because it reauthorizes the Low Income Heating and Energy Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is an unconstitutional transfer program which has outlived its usefulness. LIHEAP was instituted in order to help low-income people deal with the high prices resulting from the energy crisis of the late seventies. However, since then, home heating prices have declined by 51.6% residential electricity prices have declined by 25% and residential natural gas prices have declined by 32.7%. Furthermore, the people of Texas are sending approximately $43 million more taxpayer dollars to Washington for LIHEAP than they are receiving in LIHEAP funds. There is no moral or constitutional justification for taking money from Texans, who could use those funds for state and local programs to provide low-income Texans with relief from oppressive heat, to benefit people in other states.

1998 Ron Paul 99:7
Another provision in S. 2206 that should be of concern to believers in a free society is the provision making “faith-based organizations” eligible for federal funds under the Community Services Block Grant program. While I have little doubt that the services offered by churches and other religious institutions can be more effective in producing social services than many secular programs, I am concerned that allowing faith-based organizations’ access to federal taxpayer dollars may change those organizations into lobbyists who will compromise their core beliefs rather than risk alienating members of Congress and thus losing their federal funds. Thus, allowing faith-based organizations to receive federal funds may undermine future attempts to reduce federal control over social services, undermine America’s tradition of non-establishment of religion, and weaken the religious and moral component of the programs of “faith-based providers.” It would be a tragedy for America if religious organizations weakened the spiritual aspects that made their service programs effective in order to receive federal lucre.

1998 Ron Paul 99:8
Since S. 2206 furthers the federal government’s unconstitutional role of controlling early childhood education by increasing federal micro-management of the Head Start program, furthers government intrusions into religious institutions and redistributes income from Texans to citizens of other states through the LIHEAP program, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead join me in defunding all unconstitutional programs and cutting taxes so the American people may create social service programs that best meet the needs of low-income children and families in their communities.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 100
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Failed War On Drugs 15 September 1998

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a real doctor.

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

1998 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am a physician, I am a parent and I am a grandparent, and I am convinced that drugs are a very, very serious problem in this country, not only the illegal ones, but the legal ones as well. Just last year, 106,000 people died from the legal use of drugs. We are drug dependent, on the illegal drugs and on the legal tranquilizers. That is a major problem.

1998 Ron Paul 100:2
But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea. It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.

1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.

1998 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.

1998 Ron Paul 100:5
I have a program designed, which I cannot present here, that will change our policy and attack the drugs in a much different way.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 101
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Dollars To The Classroom Act 18 September 1998

1998 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government’s control over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress should reject this bill.

1998 Ron Paul 101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 101:3
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies are spent “in the classroom,” (a term not defined in the act) and report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the Federal Government for their management of educational programs.

1998 Ron Paul 101:4
For all its flaws, the original version of H.R. 3248 at least restored some measure of state control of education because it placed no restrictions on a state’s use of funds. It was, thus, a pure block grant. However, this bill does not even give states that level of discretion as H.R. 3248 has been amended to restrict the uses to which a state can apply its block grants.

1998 Ron Paul 101:5
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example of “mandate federalism” where states are given flexibility to determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states the authority to select a particular form of federal management of education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!

1998 Ron Paul 101:6
The federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!

1998 Ron Paul 101:7
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.

1998 Ron Paul 101:8
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.

1998 Ron Paul 101:9
Madam Chairman, those who doubt the likelihood of the above scenario should remember that the Education Committee could not even pass the initial block grant without “giving in” to the temptation to limit state autonomy in the use of education funds because “Congress cannot trust the states to do the right thing!” Given that this Congress cannot pass a clean block grant, who can doubt that some future Congress will decide that the States need federal “leadership” to ensure they use their block grants in the correct manner, or that states should be forced to use at least a certain percentage of their block grant funds on a few “vital” programs.

1998 Ron Paul 101:10
I would also ask those of my colleagues who claim that block grant will lead to future reductions in expenditures how likely is this will occur when Congress had to increase expenditures in order to originally implement the block grant programs?

1998 Ron Paul 101:11
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers’ dollars to spend as they wish.

1998 Ron Paul 101:12
It will be claimed that this bill does not increase spending, it merely funds education spending at the current level by adding an adjustment to inflation to the monies appropriated for education programs in Fiscal Year 1999. However, predicting the rate of inflation is a tricky business. If, as is very likely, inflation is less than the amount dictated by this bill, the result will be an increase in education spending in real dollar terms. Still, that is beside the point, any spending increase, whether real or nominal, ought to be opposed. CBO reports that H.R. 3248 provides “additional authorization of “9.5B.”

1998 Ron Paul 101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

1998 Ron Paul 101:14
Rather than shifting responsibility for the management of federal funds, Congress should defund all unconstitutional programs and dramatically cut taxes imposed upon the American people, thus enabling American families to devote more of their resources to education. I have introduced a bill, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816) to provide parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for education expenses. This bill directly empowers parents, not bureaucrats or state officials, to control education and is the most important education reform idea introduced in this Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 102
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Revamping The Monetary System 24 September 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. BASS). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of fellow colleagues to the issue of three things that have happened in the last couple of days.

1998 Ron Paul 102:2
Today it was recorded in our newspapers and it was a consequence of a meeting held last night having to do with a company that went bankrupt, Long-Term Capital Management. I believe this has a lot of significance and is something that we in the Congress should not ignore.

1998 Ron Paul 102:3
This is a hedge fund. Their capitalization is less than $100 billion, but, through the derivatives markets, they were able to buy and speculate in over $1 trillion worth of securities, part of the financial bubble that I have expressed concern about over the past several months.

1998 Ron Paul 102:4
But last night an emergency meeting was called by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was not called by the banks and the security firms that were standing to lose the money, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called an emergency meeting late last night. Some of the members of this meeting, the attendees, came back from Europe just to attend this meeting because it was of such a serious nature. They put together a package of $3.5 billion to bail out this company.

1998 Ron Paul 102:5
Yesterday also Greenspan announced that he would lower interest rates. I do not think this was an accident or not coincidental. It was coincidental that at this very same time they were meeting this crisis, Greenspan had to announce that, yes indeed, he would inflate our currency, he would expand the money supply, he would increase the credit, he would lower interest rates. At least that is what the markets interpreted his statement to mean. And the stock market responded favorably by going up 257 points.

1998 Ron Paul 102:6
On September 18th, the New York Times, and this is the third time that that has come about in the last several weeks, the New York Times editorialized about why we needed a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the countries involved in this financial crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 102:7
Yesterday, on the very same day, there was another op-ed piece in the New York Times by Jeffrey Garten, calling again for a worldwide central bank, that is, a worldwide Federal Reserve system to bail out the ailing economies of the world.

1998 Ron Paul 102:8
The argument might go, yes, indeed, the financial condition of the world is rather severe and we should do something. But the financial condition of the world is in trouble because we have allowed our Federal Reserve System, in deep secrecy, to create credit out of thin air and contribute to the bubble that exists. Where else could the credit come from for a company like Long- Term Capital Management? Where could they get this credit, other than having it created and encouraged by a monetary system engineered by our own Federal Reserve System?

1998 Ron Paul 102:9
We will have to do something about what is happening in the world today, but the danger that I see is that the movement is toward this worldwide Federal Reserve System or worldwide central bank. It is more of the same problem. If we have a fiat monetary system, not only in the United States but throughout the world, which has created the financial bubble, what makes anybody think that creating more credit out of thin air will solve these problems? It will make the problems much worse.

1998 Ron Paul 102:10
We need to have a revamping of the monetary system, but certainly it cannot be saved, it cannot be improved, by more paper money out of thin air, and that is what the Federal Reserve System is doing.

1998 Ron Paul 102:11
I would like to remind my colleagues that when the Federal Reserve talks about lowering interest rates, like Mr. Greenspan announced yesterday, or alluded to, this means that the Federal Reserve will create new credit. Where do they get new credit and new money? They get it out of thin air. This, of course, will lower interest rates in the short run and this will give a boost to a few people in trouble and it will bail out certain individuals.

1998 Ron Paul 102:12
When we create credit to bail out other currencies or other economies, yes, this tends to help. But the burden eventually falls on the American taxpayer, and it will fall on the value of the dollar. Already we have seen some signs that the dollar is not quite as strong as it should be if we are the haven of last resort as foreign capital comes into the United States. The dollar in relationship to the Swiss frank has been down 10 percent in the last two months. In a basket of currencies, 15 currencies by J.P. Morgan, it is down 5 percent in one month.

1998 Ron Paul 102:13
So when we go this next step of saying, yes, we must bail out the system by creating new dollars, it means that we are attacking the value of the money. When we do this, we steal the value of the money from the people who already hold dollars.

1998 Ron Paul 102:14
If we have an international Federal Reserve System that is permitted to do this without legislation and out of the realms of the legislative bodies around the world, it means that they can steal the value of the strong currencies. So literally an international central bank could undermine the value of the dollar without permission by the U.S. Congress, without an appropriation, but the penalty will fall on the American people by having a devalued dollar.

1998 Ron Paul 102:15
This is a very dangerous way to go, but the movement is on. As I mentioned, it has already been written up in the New York Times. George Soros not too long ago, last week, came before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services making the same argument. What does he happen to be? A hedge fund operator, the same business as Long-Term Capital Management, coming to us and saying, “Oh, what you better do is protect the system.”

1998 Ron Paul 102:16
Well, I do not think the American people can afford it. We do have a financial bubble, but financial bubbles are caused by the creation of new credit from central banks. Under a sound monetary system you have a commodity standard of money where politicians lose total control. Politicians do not have control and they do not instill trust into the paper money system.

1998 Ron Paul 102:17
But we go one step further. The Congress has reneged on its responsibility and has not maintained the responsibility of maintaining value in the dollar. It has turned it over to a very secretive body, the Federal Reserve System, that has no responsibility to the U.S. Congress. So I argue for the case of watching out for the dollar and argue for sound money, and not to allow this to progress any further.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 103
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal 25 September 1998

1998 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is asked to vote to approve H.R. 2621, a fasttrack procedure under which international agreements might be approved as far into the future as October 1, 2005. The “fast track” procedure requires the President to submit draft international agreements, implementing legislation, and a statement of administrative action for congressional approval. Amendments to the legislation in Congress are not permitted once the bill is introduced and committee and floor action votes may consist only of “yes” or “no” votes on any potential agreement as it is introduced.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.

1998 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally- mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally- mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.

1998 Ron Paul 103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.

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:

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.

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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.

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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 104
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

World Financial Markets 1 October 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. EVERETT). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world financial markets have been in chaos now for nearly a year and a half. The problem surrounding long-term capital investment is only one more item to add to the list. The entire process represents the unwinding of speculative investments encouraged by years of easy credit. By the way, Long Term Credit Management is not even an American corporation. It is registered in the Cayman Islands, I am sure for tax purposes.

1998 Ron Paul 104:2
The mess we are witnessing in the world today was a predictable event. Artificially low interest rates and easy credit causes malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive borrowing and uncontrolled speculation.

1998 Ron Paul 104:3
We have had now for 27 years a world saturated with fiat currencies and not one has had a definable unit of account.

1998 Ron Paul 104:4
There have been no restraints on the world monetary managers to expand their money supplies, fix short-term interest rates or deliberately debase their currencies. Although.

1998 Ron Paul 104:5
Short-term benefits were enjoyed, it is clear now they were not worth the resulting chaos. We need not look for the cause which puts the dollar, our economy and our financial markets at risk. The previous boom supported by the illusion of wealth coming from money creation is the cause of current world events, and it guarantees further unwinding of the speculative orgy of the past decades.

1998 Ron Paul 104:6
This cannot be prevented. All that we can hope for is to not prolong the agony, as our monetary and fiscal policies did in the U.S. in the 1930s and as they are currently doing in Japan and elsewhere in the world.

1998 Ron Paul 104:7
More Federal Reserve fixing of interest rates and credit expansion can hardly solve our problems when this has been precisely the cause of the mess in which we currently find ourselves.

1998 Ron Paul 104:8
Price fixing of interest rates contradicts the basic tenets of capitalism. Let it no more be said that today’s mess with financial markets is a result of capitalism’s shortcomings. Nothing is further from the truth. Allowing the market to operate even under today’s dangerous conditions is still the best option for dealing with hedge fund’s gambling mistakes, both current and future.

1998 Ron Paul 104:9
A Federal Reserve orchestrated and arm-twisting bailout of LTCM associated with less than a coincidentally announced credit expansion only puts long-term pressure on the dollar. All Americans suffer when the dollar is debased. Congress’s responsibility is to the dollar and not foreign currencies, not foreign economies or international hedge funds which get in over their heads.

1998 Ron Paul 104:10
No amount of regulation could have prevented or in the future prevent the inevitable mistakes made in an economy that is misled by rigged interest rates or a money supply dictated by central planners in a fiat money system. Hedge fund operations, because they are international in scope, are impossible to regulate and for the current ongoing crisis it is too late anyway.

1998 Ron Paul 104:11
Credit conditions that allow a company with less than $1 billion in capital to buy $100 billion worth of stock with borrowed money and manage $1.2 trillion worth of derivatives is about as classic an example as one could ever find of speculative excess brought on by easy credit. As long as capital is thought to come from a computer at the Federal Reserve and not from savings, the financial problems the world faces today will persist.

1998 Ron Paul 104:12
Our problems today should not be used to justify a worldwide central bank, as has been proposed. What we need is sound money without the central planning efforts of a Federal Reserve system fixing interest rates and regulating the money supply. Let us give freedom a chance.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 105
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Hedge Fund Bailout 2 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 2, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve orchestrated bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP raises serious policy questions. At one point, the notional value of the Cayman Island-registered fund’s derivatives totalled about $1.2 trillion. We should look seriously at this issue because of the taxpayer-backed liability concerns raised by the involvement of an agency with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The state of Michigan has taken a constructive first step regarding the public policy concerns of derivatives. I urge us to consider the wisdom of the State Representative Greg Kaza as we debate this issue.

1998 Ron Paul 105:2
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG KAZA, MICHIGAN
STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR
OF FINANCE, WALSH COLLEGE Derivatives are financial instruments broadly defined as any contract or convertible security that changes in value in concert with a related or underlying security, fixed-income instrument, future or other instrument, currency or index; or that obtains much of its value from price movements in a related or underlying instrument; or an option, swap, warrant, or debt instrument with one or more options embedded in or attached to it, the value of which contract or security is determined in whole or in part by the price of one or more underlying instruments or markets.

1998 Ron Paul 105:3
Although derivatives are a relatively recent development in financial markets, their use by corporations, pension and mutual funds, financial institutions, governments and those involved in money management are clearly ascendant, according to the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies. The issue is not whether the government should ban or in some way restrict the prudent use of derivatives to hedge risk. Rather, the issue is one of disclosure, i.e., how best to provide increased transparency as our complex international financial system enters the 21st Century.

1998 Ron Paul 105:4
Three years ago I addressed the very same issue in Michigan by authoring state legislation that provided increased transparency by requiring units of government to disclose their derivative holdings to the public. Government units have to make investment decisions regarding the money they receive or retain; unfortunately, investment practices and decisions can sometimes lead to significant losses when taxdollars are unwisely invested in derivatives. Orange County in California and Independence Township in Oakland County, Michigan are both examples of government units that experienced significant losses as a result of the imprudent use of derivatives.

1998 Ron Paul 105:5
Initially, some of my colleagues wondered whether a ban or restriction on the use of derivatives would be preferable. But committee testimony soon convinced them that derivatives, although complex, are used by many institutions, including government pension funds, to prudently hedge risk. Our five-bill package required public disclosure of derivative holdings by government units. The legislation garnered bi-partisan sponsorship and support, and ultimately became state law.

1998 Ron Paul 105:6
A related issue that we discussed privately at the time was whether the potential for moral hazard created by federal deposit insurance means private financial institutions should be required to disclose their derivative holdings in the interest of transparency. You are now likely to contemplate this issue yourselves given events surrounding the hedge fund in question, Long-Term Capital Management; and the potential for systemic risk posed by any future episode that might involve the imprudent use of derivatives and excessive amounts of leverage.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 106
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Claims Debate Time In Opposition 5 October 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON) each will control 20 minutes.

1998 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether or not either gentleman is opposed to the bill.

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

Mr. HAMILTON. I support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

1998 Ron Paul 106:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 107
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Iraq 5 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 107:2
Mr. Speaker, understand this legislation came before the committee on Friday, one legislative day prior to today. There has been no committee report filed, and it was brought up under suspension. And I believe this legislation is very serious legislation. It is not a casual piece of legislation condemning a leader in another country that is doing less than honorable things.

1998 Ron Paul 107:3
I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.

1998 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.

1998 Ron Paul 107:5
So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this President to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

1998 Ron Paul 107:6
Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was H.R. 137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn and also to set up a U.N. commission to study this and give the U.N. authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. So this is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations, but we are the spokesperson for them.

1998 Ron Paul 107:7
Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.

1998 Ron Paul 107:8
So I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the President more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the President to pursue this.

1998 Ron Paul 107:9
Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.

1998 Ron Paul 107:10
Just today it was announced that the Turks are lined up on the Syrian border. What for? To go in there and kill the Kurds because they do not like the Kurds. I think that is terrible. But what are we doing about it? Who are the Turks? They are our allies, they are our friends. They get military assistance. The American people are paying the Turks to keep their military up. So we are responsible for that.

1998 Ron Paul 107:11
This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are under trained and lack equipment, and we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and say why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everybody. We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?

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.

1998 Ron Paul 107:13
We should not be doing this. We should stop and think about it and try to figure out a much better way.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 107:15
As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint as to why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there is some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money, and I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the west. So he has to go.

1998 Ron Paul 107:16
But also at the end of this legislation it tells us something about what might be going on. It is they are asking to set up and check into the funds that Saddam Hussein owes to the west. Who is owed? They do not owe me any money. But I will bet my colleagues there is a lot of banks in New York who are owed a lot of money, and this is one of the goals, to set up and make sure Saddam Hussein pays his bills.

1998 Ron Paul 107:17
All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the President this much authority to go to war.

1998 Ron Paul 107:18
Under the appropriations it is endless, it is open, endless, and here we are concerned about saving Social Security. Any amount of money spent on this bill comes out of Social Security. Yes, there was yelling and screaming about a tax cut. Oh, it is coming out of Social Security. Well, this money is not appropriated, and it is such sums as necessary for military and economic benefits. After we get rid of one thug, we are going to have it in. I hope we make a better choice than we did with Bin Laden. I mean he was our close ally.

1998 Ron Paul 107:19
Please think twice, slow up, vote against this bill. We do not need this.

1998 Ron Paul 107:20
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 108
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Iraq — Part 2 5 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON) has 2 minutes remaining.

1998 Ron Paul 108:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 108:3
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana makes some very good points indicating that he is not convinced that this is workable. So back to the practicality of the bill. Even though one might argue there is a lot of good intentions here, even a Member that is supporting the bill is very uncertain whether it is workable.

1998 Ron Paul 108:4
In some ways, even if it is workable, it is going to be working against us and working against the United States and working against the taxpayers of this country.

1998 Ron Paul 108:5
But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

1998 Ron Paul 108:6
That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.

1998 Ron Paul 108:7
So we are talking about killing Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator. But how many ruthless dictators do we have? We have plenty. So how many more should we go after?

1998 Ron Paul 108:8
So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.

1998 Ron Paul 108:9
This is more or less what has happened. This is part of a policy that we have been following for quite a few decades. Yet, the problems continue to emerge.

1998 Ron Paul 108:10
We can hardly be sympathetic to the Kurds who are being punished by the Iraqis at the same time we are paying the Turks to do the same thing to the Kurds. So there is something awful inconsistent about this.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 108:12
This is a policy we have been following for way too long. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of respect for law because, technically, it is not legal. Waging war should only occur when the Congress and the people decide this. But to casually give more and more authority to the President to do this and encourage him to bump off dictators is a dangerous precedent to set.

1998 Ron Paul 108:13
I think there is no doubt in my mind what is best for the United States. We should not pass this resolution. If there need to be more efforts made, do it some other way. But, obviously, this is not a good way to do it. It is sacrificing the principle of law. It is sacrificing the Constitution. It is sacrificing the practicalities of even the people who are supporting it are not quite sure it is going to work.

1998 Ron Paul 108:14
So I would say give serious consideration to not supporting this bill. We need a “no” vote on this.

1998 Ron Paul 108:15
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 109
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Iraq — Part 3 5 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1998 Ron Paul 109:2
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California makes a very good point, that sometimes we get involved in these battles and we never fight to complete victory. He argues the case for pursuing it and always winning and take out the dictator that we are opposing.

1998 Ron Paul 109:3
There is some merit to that argument, but there is also a very good reason why that does not happen and will not happen. It is because when we fight a war for non-national security reasons, when it is limited to protecting oil or some other interest, then there is a limitation, there is no wanting to expand it.

1998 Ron Paul 109:4
When we fight a war for national security reasons, we declare the war, the people join, they are willing to support it financially, they volunteer to go into the military, and they fight to win. But we have not done that since World War II, precisely because we have this namby-pamby foreign policy of being everything to everybody and we do not even defend our national security adequately enough.

1998 Ron Paul 109:5
The gentleman from California makes a good point also. He is concerned that somebody like Saddam Hussein may attack us with weapons of mass destruction. He is precisely right. I am concerned about that too. But I would say that our exposure is about 100 times greater because of our policy. Why is it that the terrorists want to go after Americans? Because we are always dropping bombs on people and telling people what to do; because we are the policemen. We pretend to be the arbitrator of every argument in the world, even those that have existed for 1,000 years. It is a failed, flawed policy.

1998 Ron Paul 109:6
So I would say I have exactly the same concerns, but I think the policy that we follow has generated this problem, and it will continue.

1998 Ron Paul 109:7
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by talking a little bit about this authorization. It says, there are to be authorized appropriations, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation funds. This is what the money is to go for: Defense articles, defense services, military education, and training. Sounds like getting ready for the Bay of Pigs. That is exactly what we did. And then we backed off, we were not doing it for the right reason, and of course we have solidified for 40 years the dictatorship in Cuba.

1998 Ron Paul 109:8
So do my colleagues think our policy over the last 10 years has actually helped to weaken Saddam Hussein? Every time he comes out of it stronger. And then those who say, “Well, we should march in,” we should all question. Those of us here in the Congress who are so anxious to take out this dictator, they should be willing to march themselves, or send their children and send their grandchildren. Is it worth that? No, no, we would not want to do that, we have to keep our troops safe, safe from harm, but we will just pay somebody to do it. We will pay somebody to do it and we will make wild promises. Promise the Kurds something. They will take care of Saddam Hussein. And sure enough, the promises never come through.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

1998 Ron Paul 109:9
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not think it is proper for us to offer those people who are struggling for freedoms in Iraq against their dictatorship a helping hand?

1998 Ron Paul 109:10
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it would be absolutely proper to do that, as long as it came out of the gentleman’s wallet and we did not extract it from somebody in this country, a taxpayer at the point of a gun and say, look, bin Laden is a great guy. I want more of your money.

1998 Ron Paul 109:11
That is what we did in the 1980s. That is what the Congress did. They went to the taxpayers, they put a gun to their head, and said, you pay up, because we think bin Laden is a freedom fighter.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if the gentleman will further yield, it was just not handled correctly.

1998 Ron Paul 109:12
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, the policy is flawed. The policy is flawed.

1998 Ron Paul 109:13
I think the conclusions we have today are logical. I do not think they lack logic. I think that if one decides that we are fighting for our national security reasons, we never stop short of victory. So this would go along with the gentleman’s argument that we stopped too soon in Iraq. But we were not there for national security reasons. They were not about to invade us, and they are not about to invade us. The only way we should fear an invasion by these hoodlums is if we incite them to terrorism.

1998 Ron Paul 109:14
We should consider this a very serious piece of legislation. This is a vote for virtual war and giving more power to the President. It has an open-ended appropriation, and if we spend one nickel on it, we are going to take it out of Social Security, the way the budget works around here.

1998 Ron Paul 109:15
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 110
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Yeas And Nays 5 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 111
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Lake Texana 7 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago, HR 4570 was described as a “delicate balance” not to be disturbed by votes against either the resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented for passage of the bill was the “brilliance” with which a compromise securing the necessary number of votes was “engineered.” Statements such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in the nation’s capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which federal government “favors” are distributed in a means which assures everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority for most of what HR 4570 proposes to do.

1998 Ron Paul 111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).

1998 Ron Paul 111:3
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation. This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43 million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.

1998 Ron Paul 111:4
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource. Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.

1998 Ron Paul 111:5
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons, while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose HR 4570.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 112
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Hays County 4-H Annual Dinner, Dance And Auction 7 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 7, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Hays County 4–H will hold their annual dinner, dance and auction on Saturday, October 10, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.

1998 Ron Paul 112:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.

1998 Ron Paul 112:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Hays County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 113
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Fayette County 4-H Annual Banquet 7 October 1998 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 7, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Fayette County 4–H will hold their annual banquet on Sunday, October 11, 1998. This is a very important event Mr. Speaker, as it recognizes 90 years of 4–H in Texas. For those of us who were raised on farms and who represent agricultural communities it is well known how important an organization 4–H truly is.

1998 Ron Paul 113:2
Head, Hand, Hearts and Health, these are the “4–H’s” and they are truly indicative of what this organization is all about. One of the primary missions that this organization undertakes is agricultural education. Earlier this year I introduced a bill which would exempt the sale of livestock by those involved in educational activities such as FFA and 4–H from federal income taxation. By making young men and women who participate in these activities hire a group of tax accountants and attorneys we are sending the wrong message. Young people who sell livestock at county fairs and the like should be rewarded for taking self initiative and allowed to keep the money they’ve earned to help pay for their education or to re-invest in other animals to raise. My bill would eliminate the current policy of forcing these youngsters to visit the tax man.

1998 Ron Paul 113:3
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the young people of Fayette County’s 4–H, as well as their parents and sponsors, for continuing the fine traditions of this truly great organization.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 114
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Award Winners Of The Fayette County 4-H 7 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 7, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to thirteen young men and women from Fayette County who will this weekend be honored by the Fayette County 4–H club in my district.

1998 Ron Paul 114:2
Being awarded the Gold Star will be Michelle Cernoch; Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.

1998 Ron Paul 114:3
Receiving the Silver Star, Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.

1998 Ron Paul 114:4
The “I Dare You” award will go to Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.

1998 Ron Paul 114:5
The “Outstanding Junior” Award will be presented to Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.

1998 Ron Paul 114:6
And finally, the “Outstanding Sub Junior” award will be presented to Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick and Brandon Otto.

1998 Ron Paul 114:7
These fine young people should be commended for their dedication to the fine principles of 4–H. I know I speak for all the constituents of the 14th District when I offer them congratulations and best wishes for continued success.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 115
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Provider ID 8 October 1998

1998 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that under the rule my amendment to the Labor- HHS-Education Appropriations bill is not permitted. This simple amendment forbids the Department of Health and Human Services from spending any funds to implement those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database.

1998 Ron Paul 115:2
My amendment was drafted to ensure that the administration cannot take any steps toward developing or implementing a medical ID. This approach is necessary because if the administration is allowed to work on developing a medical ID it is likely to attempt to implement the ID on at least a “trial” basis. I would remind my colleagues of our experience with national testing. In 1997 Congress forbade the Department of Education from implementing a national test, however it allowed work toward developing national tests. The administration has used this “development loophole” to defy congressional intent by taking steps toward implementation of a national test. It seems clear that only a complete ban forbidding any work on health identifiers will stop all work toward implementation.

1998 Ron Paul 115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”

1998 Ron Paul 115:4
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?

1998 Ron Paul 115:5
Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality.

1998 Ron Paul 115:6
My amendment forbids the federal government from creating federal IDs for doctors and employers as well as for individuals. Contrary to the claims of some, federal-ID numbers for doctors and employers threaten American liberty every bit as much as individual medical IDs.

1998 Ron Paul 115:7
The National Provider ID will force physicians who use technologies such as e-mail in their practices to record all health care transactions with the government. This will allow the government to track and monitor the treatment of all patients under that doctor’s care. Government agents may pull up the medical records of a patient with no more justification than a suspicion the provider is involved in fraudulent activity unrelated to that patient’s care!

1998 Ron Paul 115:8
The National Standard Employer Identifier will require employers to record employees’ private health transactions in a database. This will allow coworkers, hackers, government agents and other unscrupulous persons to access the health transactions of every employee in a company simply by typing the company’s identifier into their PC!

1998 Ron Paul 115:9
Many of my colleagues admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government- mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.

1998 Ron Paul 115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.

1998 Ron Paul 115:11
Even the process by which the National Identifier is being developed shows disdain for the rights of the American people. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, which is developing the national identifier, attempted to keep important documents hidden from the public in violation of federal law. In fact, one of the members of the NCVHS panel working on the medical ID chastised his colleagues for developing the medical ID “in an aura of secrecy.”

1998 Ron Paul 115:12
Last September, NCVHS proposed guidelines for the development of the medical ID. Those guidelines required that all predecisional documents “should be kept in strict confidence and not be shared or discussed,” This is a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all working documents to be made public. Although NCVHS, succumbing to public pressure and possible legal action against it, recently indicated it will make its pre-decisional documents available in compliance with federal law, I hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee agree that the NCVHS attempt to evade the will of Congress and keep its work secret does not bode well for any future attempts to protect the medical ID from abuse by government officials.

1998 Ron Paul 115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

1998 Ron Paul 115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.

1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor- HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 116
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congratulating Fayette County 4-H Award Recipients 9 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 9, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to several fine young men and women from my district who have distinguished themselves in the Fayette County 4– H. As my colleagues know, 4–H is one of the finest youth-oriented organizations in our nation, developing character in our future leaders.

1998 Ron Paul 116:2
Fayette County 4–H will be recognizing with special awards the following young people on Saturday night, October 9, and I know my colleagues join me in congratulating them and wishing them the best for the future.

1998 Ron Paul 116:3
Receiving the Gold Star award are Michelle Cernoch, Ashley Dittert, and Vickie Sanders.

1998 Ron Paul 116:4
Receiving the Silver Star award are Bradley Klesel and Billie Jo Murphy.

1998 Ron Paul 116:5
Receiving the “I Dare You” award are Heather Woelfel and Shayne Markwardt.

1998 Ron Paul 116:6
Receiving the “Outstanding Jr.” award are Jenifer Klesel, Melanie Cernoch and Kelly Orsak.

1998 Ron Paul 116:7
And receiving the “Outstanding Sub Jr.” award are Adam Mayer, Jodie Kristynick, and Brandon Otto.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 117
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

New Global Economic Plan 9 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 9, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Global leaders are scurrying around to put together, as quickly as possible, a new plan to solve the international financial crisis.

1998 Ron Paul 117:2
The world economies have been built on generous credit expansion with each country inflating their currencies at different rates. Additionally, each country has had different political, tax, and regulatory policies leading to various degrees of trust and stability. Economies that have “enjoyed” inflationary booms, by their very nature, must undergo a market correction. The market demands deflation of all excesses, while the politicians and special interests agitate for continued credit inflation. Under these circumstances, financial assets may deflate in price but monetary inflation continues and the currency is further depreciated thus putting serious pressure on the dollar; as in the case of the United States.

1998 Ron Paul 117:3
Fluctuating fiat currencies, no matter how inefficient as compared to a world commodity monetary standard, function solely because exchange rates are allowed to fluctuate and currency movements across borders are freely permitted as capital seeks the most efficient market. This process provides an indication when host countries need to improve monetary and fiscal policy.

1998 Ron Paul 117:4
A gold standard solves capital flow problems automatically and avoids all currency speculation. Gold prevents excesses from developing to any dangerous level.

1998 Ron Paul 117:5
Decades ago, the gold standard was abandoned and now our global planners want to take another step to regulate all capital flows throughout the world thus removing the only good indicator left to warn of dangers ahead and the need for sound reform. The rapid transfer of capital around the world is the messenger and not the cause. Killing the messenger will only hide and increase distortions while prolonging the economic pain.

1998 Ron Paul 117:6
The proposal of the Group of 22 to regulate capital flows through a new “World Central Bank” prevents any effort to restore efficient market mechanisms and prevents any serious discussion for using gold as the money of choice.

1998 Ron Paul 117:7
All money managers in major countries decry currency controls by any individual country yet are now about to embark on a new world-wide approach to regulating all capital flows — a global economic plan to socialize all world credit. But, it won’t work because the plan is deeply and inherently flawed.

1998 Ron Paul 117:8
First, the plan demands additional appropriations to transfer wealth from the richer to the poorer nations through increased funding of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Development Bank, and direct foreign aid programs.

1998 Ron Paul 117:9
Second, it calls for more credit expansion by the richer nations, more loan guarantees, and export-import bank credits and, indirectly, by providing credit to the Exchange Stabilization Fund and possibly to the Bank International Settlements.

1998 Ron Paul 117:10
Third this plan calls for an international government agreement to strictly control capital flows and mandate debt forgiveness in contrast to allowing countries to default. Controlling swift movements of capital is impossible and any attempt only encourages world government through planning by a world fiat monetary system. Any temporary “benefit” can only be achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the world economy, all done with the pretense of preserving financial stability at the expense of national sovereignty and personal liberty.

1998 Ron Paul 117:11
Let there be no doubt, the current chaos is being used to promote a new world fiat monetary system while giving political powers to its managers.

1998 Ron Paul 117:12
Instead, we should be talking about abandoning the paper money system we have lived with for 27 years. It has, after all, brought us the current world-wide financial mess.

1998 Ron Paul 117:13
Free markets and stable money should be our goal, not further institutionalizing of world economic planning and fiat money at the sacrifice of personal liberty. Indeed, we need a serious discussion of the current crisis but so far no one should be encouraged by the direction in which the Group of 22 is going. Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect the dollar, not to sit idly by as it’s being deliberately devalued.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 118
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998 9 October 1998

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 9, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4567 even though I support reforming the Interim Payment System (IPS) and I certainly support expanding the health care options available to American veterans. However, I cannot support this bill because this solution to home care is inadequate and it raises taxes on Americans instead of cutting wasteful, unconstitutional spending to offset the bill’s increases in expenditures.

1998 Ron Paul 118:2
I am pleased that Congress is at last taking action to address the problems created by the IPS. Unless the IPS is reformed, efficient home care agencies across the country may be forced to close. This would raise Medicare costs, as more seniors would be forced to enter nursing homes or forced to seek care from a limited number of home health care agencies. In fact, those agencies that survive the IPS will have been granted a virtual monopoly over the home care market. Only in Washington could punishing efficient businesses and creating a monopoly be sold as a cost-cutting measure!

1998 Ron Paul 118:3
Congress does need to act to ensure that affordable home care remains available to the millions of senior citizens who rely on home care. However, the proposal before us today does not address the concerns of small providers in states such as Texas. Instead, it increases the reimbursement rate of home care agencies in other states. I am also concerned that the reimbursement formula in this bill continues to saddle younger home health agencies with lower rates of reimbursement than similarly situated agencies who have been in operation longer. Any IPS reform worthy of support should place all health care agencies on a level playing field for reimbursements.

1998 Ron Paul 118:4
A member of my staff has been informed by a small home health care operator in my district that passage of this bill would allow them only to provide an additional eight visits per year. This will not keep home health patients with complex medical conditions out of nursing homes and hospitals. Congress should implement a real, budget-neutral home health care reform rather than waste our time and the taxpayers’ money with the phony reform before us today.

1998 Ron Paul 118:5
Mr. Speaker, I also support the language of the bill expanding the health care options available to veterans’ benefits. Ensuring the nation’s veterans have a quality health care system should be one of the governments’ top priorities. In fact, I am currently working on a plan to improve veterans’ health care by allowing them greater access to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). However, I cannot, in good conscience, support the proposals before us today because, for all their good intentions, it is fatally flawed in implementation for it attempts to offset its new spending with a tax increase.

1998 Ron Paul 118:6
Now I know many of the bill’s supporters will claim that this is not a tax increase just an adjustment in the qualifications for a tax benefit or tightening a tax loophole. However, the fact is that by raising the threshold before a taxpayer can rollover their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA the federal government is forcing some people to pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, thus they are raising taxes. It is morally wrong for Congress to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to provide benefits for another group of Americans.

1998 Ron Paul 118:7
Instead of raising taxes Congress should “offset” these programs by cutting spending in other areas. In particular, Congress should finance veterans health care by reducing expenditures wasted on global adventurism, such as the Bosnia mission. Congress should stop spending Americans blood and treasure to intervene in quarrels that do not concern the American people.

1998 Ron Paul 118:8
Similarly, Congress should seek funds for an increased expenditure on home care by ending federal support for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which benefit wealthy bankers and powerful interests but not the American people. At a time when the federal government continues to grow to historic heights and meddles in every facet of American life I cannot believe that Congress cannot find expenditure cuts to finance the programs in this bill!

1998 Ron Paul 118:9
Mr. Speaker, I must also note that the only time this Congress seems concerned with offsets is when we are either cutting taxes or increasing benefits to groups like veterans or senior citizens. The problem is not a lack of funds but a refusal of this Congress to set proper priorities and put the needs of the American people first.

1998 Ron Paul 118:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon this Congress to reject this bill and instead support an IPS reform that is fair to all home care providers and does not finance worthwhile changes in Medicare by raising taxes. Instead, Congress should offset the cost to these worthy programs by cutting programs that do not benefit the American people.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 119
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Rights Of The Individual 14 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 14, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Michael Kelly, National Journal editor. Mr. Kelly aptly describes how the notion of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.

1998 Ron Paul 119:2
PUNISHING ‘HATE CRIMES’
(By Michael Kelly) As one who wholeheartedly supports capital punishment, I have what seems to me a cleareyed vision of what justice demands in the murder of Matthew Shepard, the 21-yearold Wyoming college student who was, one night last week, robbed, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence and left to die. Bring in the monsters who did this, try ’em, verdict ’em and string ’em up, preferably before an applauding crowd of thousands.

1998 Ron Paul 119:3
And justice does appear on the way to being served. Two young men — Russell A. Henderson and Aaron J. McKinney — have been arrested and charged with first-degree murder; their girlfriends have been charged as accessories. There does not seem to be a lot of doubt that Henderson and McKinney did commit the acts that caused Shepard’s death, nor does it seem at all likely that they will escape punishment.

1998 Ron Paul 119:4
But this, it is said, is not enough. Because Shepard was gay, and because his killers appear to have been motivated in part by an anti-gay animus (though police say robbery was the primary motive), justice is said to demand more. Specifically, it demands more bad law.

1998 Ron Paul 119:5
“Hate-crime” laws mandate increased penalties for defendants found guilty of committing crimes inspired by certain categories of prejudice. In 21 states and the District of Columbia, the categories are: race, religion, color, national origin and sexual orientation. Nineteen additional states have hate-crime laws that do not cover sexual orientation. Ten states, including Wyoming, have not passed categorical hate-crime laws. There is also a federal law, which covers race, religion, color and national origin but not sex or sexual orientation.

1998 Ron Paul 119:6
For Shepard’s sake, the cry arises, Wyoming must pass a hate-crime law, and Congress must pass a new, more sweeping, Federal Hate Crimes Protection Act, which would add to the roster of crimes made federal offenses those inspired by bigotry based on sex, disability and sexual orientation. “There is something we can do about this. Congress needs to pass our tough hate crimes legislation,” President Clinton declared Monday, the day Shepard died of his injuries.

1998 Ron Paul 119:7
At least he is consistent. No president has ever been more willing to assault liberty in the pursuit of political happiness than has this one. Clinton is always willing to embrace any new erosion of rights, as long as there is a group of voters or political contributors out there who wish it so. This is one area in which Clinton has been thoroughly bipartisan. In his five years in office, he has joined Republicans in Congress on quite a spree of liberty-bashing. He has signed laws that have stripped habeas corpus to its bones, vastly increased the number of crimes deemed federal offenses, established mindless mandatory sentencing and targeted certain classes of defendants — terrorists, drug pushers — for the special evisceration of rights.

1998 Ron Paul 119:8
And playing to the other side of the political spectrum, Clinton has consistently and strongly supported the expansion of harassment and discrimination law, an expansion that has in recent years increasingly worked to criminalize behavior that government once regarded as private. Well, at least he supported such law until the case of Jones v. Clinton arose.

1998 Ron Paul 119:9
Of all the violence that has been done in this great expansion of state authority over, and criminalization of, the private behavior and thoughts of citizens, none is more serious than that perpetuated by the hate-crime laws. Here, we are truly in the realm of thought crimes. Hate-crime laws require the state to treat one physical assault differently from the way it would treat another — solely because the state has decided that one motive for assaulting a person is more heinous than another.

1998 Ron Paul 119:10
What Henderson and McKinney allegedly did was a terrible, evil thing. But would it have been less terrible if Shepard had not been gay? If Henderson and McKinney beat Shepard to death because they hated him personally, not as a member of a group, should the law treat them more lightly? Yes, say hate-crime laws.

1998 Ron Paul 119:11
In 1996 the FBI recorded 1,281 “crimes against persons” for reasons of sexual-orientation bias. Two of these were murders and 222 were aggravated assaults. Four hundred and seventy-two of what the government termed hate crimes were not assaults but “acts of intimidation.” These latter would not be crimes except for the determination that expressions of certain prejudices and hatreds were in themselves criminal offenses.

1998 Ron Paul 119:12
There is a long history of police and prosecutors slighting assaults against gays and lesbians. Justice demands that the cops and the courts treat the perpetrators of assaults against citizens who happen to be homosexual as harshly as they do the perpetrators of assaults against anyone else. But not more so.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 120
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Monetary Policy 16 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 16, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a world-wide financial crisis is now upon us.

1998 Ron Paul 120:2
For 2 years, I have called attention to this predictable event hoping the Congress would deal with it in a serious manner.

1998 Ron Paul 120:3
Although many countries are now suffering more than the United States, in time, I am sure our problems will become much greater

1998 Ron Paul 120:4
A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twentyseven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in its turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970’s.

1998 Ron Paul 120:5
Now, after another 27 years, we are seeing the end of the post-Bretton Woods floating rate system with another bang as the financial asset inflation of the 1980’s and 1990’s collapses. A new system is now required.

1998 Ron Paul 120:6
Just as the Bretton Woods system was never repaired due to its flaws, so too will it be impossible to rebuild the floating rate system of the past 27 years. The sooner we admit to its total failure, and start planning for sound money, the better.

1998 Ron Paul 120:7
We must understand the serious flaw in the current system that is playing havoc with world markets. When license is given to central banks to inflate (debase) a currency, they eventually do so. Politicians love the central bank’s role as lender of last resort and their power to monetize the steady stream of public debt generated by the largesse that guarantees the politician’s reelection.

1998 Ron Paul 120:8
The constitutional or credit restraint of a commodity standard of money offers stability and non-inflationary growth but does not accommodate the special interests that demand benefits bigger and faster than normal markets permit. The only problem is the financial havoc that results when the unsound system is forced into a major correction which are inherent to all fiat systems.

1998 Ron Paul 120:9
That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood. Attempts at credit stimulation with interest rates below 1 percent is doing nothing for Japan’s economy and for good reasons. it is the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis.

1998 Ron Paul 120:10
If the problem were merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the luck few, benefits are received when government inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.

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.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 120:13
A program to prevent this from happening is necessary.

1998 Ron Paul 120:14
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.

1998 Ron Paul 120:15
Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins.

1998 Ron Paul 120:16
Third, we must abandon the tradition of bailing out bad debtors, foreign and domestic. No International Monetary Fund and related institution funding to prop up bankrupt countries, and no Federal Reserve-orchestrated bailouts such as Long Term Capital Management LP. Liquidation of bad debt and investments must be permitted.

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.

1998 Ron Paul 120:18
Following a policy of this sort could quickly restore growth and stability to any filing economy and soften the blow for all those about to experience the connections that have been put in place by previous years of mischief, mismanagement and monetary inflation.

1998 Ron Paul 120:19
Short of a free market, sound money approach will guarantee a sustained attack on personal liberty as governments grow more authoritarian and militaristic.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 121
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Education Debate 16 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 16, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education debate that has consumed much of this Congress in recent days. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the difference between the congressional leadership and the administration are not that significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s commandand- control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposals to further nationalize education.

1998 Ron Paul 121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

1998 Ron Paul 121:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.

1998 Ron Paul 121:4
This bill is the largest tax credit for education in the history of our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.

1998 Ron Paul 121:5
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the Federal Government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of Federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.

1998 Ron Paul 121:6
Of course I applaud all efforts which move in this direction. the Gingrich/Coverdell education tax cut, The Granger/Dunn bill, and, yes, President Clinton’s college tax credits are good first steps in the direction I advocate. However, Congress must act boldly, we can ill afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs, creating new Federal education programs (such as those contained in the Reading Excellence Act and the four new Federal programs created by the Higher Education Act), and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block grants.

1998 Ron Paul 121:7
One area where this Congress was successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing and thank Mr. GOODLING for his leadership in this struggle. However, I wish this provision did no come at the price of $1.1 billion in new Federal spending. In addition, I note that this Congress is taking several steps toward creating a national curriculum, particularly through the Reading Excellence Act, which dictates teaching methodologies to every classroom in the Nation and creates a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with Federal standards the goal of education.

1998 Ron Paul 121:8
So, even when Congress resists one proposal to further nationalize education, it supports another form of nationalization. Some Members will claim they are resisting nationalization and even standing up for the 10th amendment by fighting to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on block grants. These Members say that the expenditure levels do not matter, it is the way the money that is spent which is important. Contrary to the view of these wellmeaning but misguided members, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on Federal education programs do matter.

1998 Ron Paul 121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 121:10
Furthermore, the Federal Government’s power to treat State governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a State’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates in exchange for Federal funding!

1998 Ron Paul 121:11
As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.

1998 Ron Paul 121:12
Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal Government.

1998 Ron Paul 121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

1998 Ron Paul 121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.

1998 Ron Paul 121:15
Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’ failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy road we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 122
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Hate Crimes And Individual Rights 16 October 1998

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 16, 1998

1998 Ron Paul 122:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in Congress as well as citizens everywhere an article authored by Richard Sincere, Jr., President of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. Mr. Sincere aptly describes how the very essence of hate crimes undermines a pillar of a free and just society; that is, equal treatment under the law irrespective of which particular group or groups with whom an individual associates. Ours is a republic based upon the rights of the individual.

1998 Ron Paul 122:2
[From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14, 1998]
GAY STUDENT’S MURDER IS NO REASON TO
MAKE BAD LAW
(By Richard E. Sincere, Jr.) The wicked murder of Matthew Shepard by two thugs, assisted by two equally contemptible accomplices, has resurrected a debate about the need for hate-crime laws.

1998 Ron Paul 122:3
Shepard, an openly gay University of Wyoming student who had been widely praised for his talents, ambitions and personality, last week was beaten senseless and left for dead, tied up like a scarecrow along a fence on a little-traveled country road. Miraculously, he was found by passers-by many hours after the attack, still struggling for life when he was rushed to a hospital in Fort Collins, CO, where he died Monday while on life support.

1998 Ron Paul 122:4
Local law enforcement officials in Laramie, WY, where the crime took place, quickly arrested the alleged perpetrators — two men who performed the assault and two women who helped them hide their deed — and it looks like they will be punished to the full extent the law allows if they are convicted. With Shepard’s death, they face a possible death sentence.

1998 Ron Paul 122:5
Laramie, a university community of 27,000 people, is feeling both shame and outrage, a sentiment shared by all right-minded people throughout the country, indeed around the world. News of this brutal assault has appeared everywhere in print and broadcast media.

1998 Ron Paul 122:6
The crime against Shepard has renewed calls for passing hate-crime legislation, both in Wyoming and nationwide. Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer and President Bill Clinton have said that this attack shows the need for such laws.

1998 Ron Paul 122:7
This would be a mistake. It would be a mistake because hate-crime laws, however well intentioned, are feel-good laws whose primary result is thought control, violating our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of conscience. It would be a mistake because it suggests that crimes against some people are worse than crimes against others. And it would be a mistake because it uses a personal tragedy, deeply felt by Shepard’s family and friends, to advance a political agenda.

1998 Ron Paul 122:8
Hunter College Professor Wayne Dynes, editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, notes that hate-crime laws, if they are to be applied in a constitutional manner, must be content-neutral. He notes this example: “Countless numbers of people, aware of the unspeakable atrocities under his leadership, hated Pol Pot. This hate was surely well warranted. If one of the Pol Pot haters had killed him, would this be a hate crime? Why not?”

1998 Ron Paul 122:9
Dynes adds: “In seeking to exculpate the killer, we would get into the question of whether some hate is ‘justified’ and some is not.” He concludes that hate-crime prosecutions “will be used to sanction certain belief systems — systems which the enforcer would like, in some Orwellian fashion, to make unthinkable. This is not a proper use of law.”

1998 Ron Paul 122:10
Under our system of justice, everyone is equal before the law. Those accused of crimes are entitled to certain constitutional protection, which we must cherish, and the victims of a crime — whether a Bill Gates or the poorest street-sweeper in a slum — are entitled to the same respect. (In the Middle Ages, the law required a greater punishment for killing a rich man or noble than it did for killing a peasant or a laborer. Our law recognizes no such distinctions.)

1998 Ron Paul 122:11
So, too, with class- or group-based distinctions. Is it worse to kill a man because he is foreign-born than it is to kill him to steal his car? Is it worse to kill a woman because she is black than because she cut you off in traffic? Is it worse to beat up a fat sissy boy if the bullies think their victim is gay, or if they dislike him because he is fat? Crime is crime; assault is assault. All deserve punishment.

1998 Ron Paul 122:12
Hateful thoughts may be disagreeable, but they are not crimes in themselves. The crimes that result from hateful thoughts — whether vandalism, assault or murder — are already punishable by existing statutes.

1998 Ron Paul 122:13
In a speech at the University of Texas last year, libertarian activist Gene Cisewski said: “We should be anti-violence, period. Any act of violence has to be punished swiftly and severely and it shouldn’t matter who the victim is. The initiation of force is wrong and it doesn’t matter why — the mere fact you had a motive is enough.”

1998 Ron Paul 122:14
Cisewski acknowledged the good intentions of those who propose hate-crime laws. He noted that “the reason for the call for (such laws) comes from bad enforcement of the laws.” Police and prosecutors have been willing to look the other way when victims came from unfavored groups. Luckily, in the Shepard case, the authorities seem unwavering in their prosecution. This is, unfortunately, not always the case.

1998 Ron Paul 122:15
The answer, Cisewski suggested, and I agree, is that “we hold every law enforcement official and every court official who administers justice to the standard that every American is guaranteed equal protection under the law.”

1998 Ron Paul 122:16
Hate-crime laws set up certain privileged categories of people, defined by the groups to which they belong, and offers them unequal protection under the law. This is wrong. It is sad to see a young man’s personal misfortune used by various special-interest groups to advance such an agenda.

1998 Ron Paul 122:17
We are all shocked and dismayed by the assault on Shepard. Such brutality cannot, should not be countenanced. Let us not multiply the crimes of his attackers by writing bad law in response.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 123
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Is Either Gentleman Opposed? 17 December 1998

1998 Ron Paul 123:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman opposed to the resolution?

The SPEAKER. The unanimous consent request did not allocate time on the basis of opposition.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 124
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Resolution On Saddam Hussein 17 December 1998

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

1998 Ron Paul 124:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the proper way.

1998 Ron Paul 124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.

1998 Ron Paul 124:3
Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.

1998 Ron Paul 124:4
This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping this action.

1998 Ron Paul 124:5
We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any more.

1998 Ron Paul 124:6
We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House, must assume our responsibilities.

1998 Ron Paul 124:7
I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.

1998 Ron Paul 124:8
First and foremost, the notion that the United States can dictate the political leadership of a foreign policy is immoral. What right have we to determine these things for any nation other than our own? The answer, clearly, is “none,” we have no such right.

1998 Ron Paul 124:9
There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.

1998 Ron Paul 124:10
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress.

1998 Ron Paul 124:11
As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the government of a sovereign nation.

1998 Ron Paul 124:12
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes.

1998 Ron Paul 124:13
Finally, even by the amoral measure of “realpolitik” the policy of Saddam’s removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who practice “realpolitik” this points to the fact that by the measures established by the “pragmatists” the stated policy of Saddam’s removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint.

1998 Ron Paul Chapter 125
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998

1998 Ron Paul 125:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all four articles of impeachment against the President. There is neither pleasure nor vindictiveness in this vote and I have found no one else taking this vote lightly. It seems though many of our colleagues are not pleased with the investigative process; some believing it to have been overly aggressive and petty, while others are convinced it has been unnecessarily limited and misdirected. It certainly raises the question of whether or not the special prosecutor rather than the Congress itself should be doing this delicate work of oversight. Strict adherence to the Constitution would reject the notion that Congress undermine the separations of power by delivering this oversight responsibility to the administration. The long delays and sharp criticisms of the special prosecutor could have been prevented if the Congress had not been dependent on the actions of an Attorney General’s appointee.

1998 Ron Paul 125:2
The charges against the President are serious and straight forward: lying, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The main argument made in his defense is that these charges surround the sexual escapades of the President and therefore should not be considered as serious as they otherwise would be.

1998 Ron Paul 125:3
But there are many people in this country and some members of Congress who sincerely believe we have over concentrated on the Lewinsky event while ignoring many other charges that have been pushed aside and not fully scrutinized by the House. It must not be forgotten that a resolution to inquire into the possible impeachment of the President was introduced two months before the nation became aware of Monica Lewinsky.

1998 Ron Paul 125:4
For nearly six years there has been a steady and growing concern about the legal actions of the President. These charges seem almost endless: possible bribery related to Webb Hubble, foreign government influence in the 1996 presidential election, military technology given to China, FBI files, travel office irregularities, and many others. Many Americans are not satisfied that Congress has fully investigated the events surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.

1998 Ron Paul 125:5
The media and the administration has concentrated on the sexual nature of the investigation and this has done a lot to distract from everything else. The process has helped to make the President appear to be a victim of government prosecutorial overkill while ignoring the odious significance of the 1,000 FBI files placed for political reasons in the White House. If corruption becomes pervasive in any administration, yet no actual fingerprints of the president are found on indicting documents, there must come a time when the “CEO” becomes responsible for the actions of his subordinates. That is certainly true in business, the military, and in each congressional office.

1998 Ron Paul 125:6
There is a major irony in this impeachment proceeding. A lot has been said the last two months by members of the Judiciary Committee on both side of the aisle regarding the Constitution and how it must be upheld. But if we are witnessing all of a sudden the serious move toward obeying constitutional restraints, I will anxiously look forward to the next session when 80 percent of our routine legislation will be voted down.

1998 Ron Paul 125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.

1998 Ron Paul 125:8
Much has been said about the support the President continues to receive from the American people in spite of his acknowledged misconduct. It does seem that the polls and the recent election indicate the public is not inclined to remove the President from office nor reward the Republicans for their efforts to investigate the Lewinsky affair. It is quite possible as many have suggested that the current status of the economy has a lot to do with this tolerance.

1998 Ron Paul 125:9
The public’s acceptance of the President’s behavior may reflect the moral standards of our age, but I’m betting there’s a lot more to it. It is true that some conservative voters, demanding the Republicans in Congress hold the President to a greater accountability, “voted” by staying home. They did not want to encourage the Republicans who were seen as being soft on Clinton for his personal behavior and for capitulating on the big government agenda of more spending, and more taxes. But hopefully there is a much more profound reason for the seemingly inconsistent position of a public who condemns the President while not having the stomach for punishing him through impeachment.

1998 Ron Paul 125:10
If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government.

1998 Ron Paul 125:11
The political contest, as it has always been throughout history, remains between the desire for security and the love for liberty. When economic security is provided by the government, privacy and liberty must be sacrificed. The longer a welfare state lasts the greater the conflict between government intrusiveness and our privacy. Government efficiency and need for its financing through a ruthless tax system prompts the perpetual barrage of government agents checking on everything we do.

1998 Ron Paul 125:12
Fortunately, the resentment toward government for its meddling in all aspects of our lives is strong and becoming more galvanized, and that should give us hope that all is not lost.

1998 Ron Paul 125:13
But this resentment must be channeled in the right direction. Belief that privacy and liberty can be protected while the welfare state is perpetuated through ever higher taxes is an unrealizable dream.

1998 Ron Paul 125:14
The “sympathy”, if that’s what we want to call it, for the President reflects the instinctive nature of most Americans who resent the prying eyes of big government. It’s easy to reason: “If the President of the United States can be the subject of a ‘sting operation’ and FBI ordered tape recordings, how can any of us be secure in our homes and papers?”

1998 Ron Paul 125:15
The ambivalence comes from fear that demanding privacy, even for the President, means that his actions are then condoned. And turning this into a perjury issue has been difficult.

1998 Ron Paul 125:16
The President, his advisors, and the friendly media were all aware that the sexual privacy issue would distract from the serious charges and knew it was their best chance to avoid impeachment.

1998 Ron Paul 125:17
But the President, this Administration and the Congress have all been hypocritical for demanding privacy for themselves yet are the arch enemies of our privacy. Although other Administrations have abused the FBI and the IRS, this Administration has systematically abused these powers like none other.

1998 Ron Paul 125:18
Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution.

1998 Ron Paul 125:19
Hopefully, the concept of the overly aggressive prosecutor will be condemned when it comes to overly aggressive activities of all the federal police agencies whether it’s the IRS, the BATF or any other authoritarian agency of the federal government.

1998 Ron Paul 125:20
A former U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, recently told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “the philosophy of (the Attorney General’s office) the last 10 to 15 years is whatever works is right,” when it comes to enforcing federal laws which essentially all are unconstitutional. It’s this attitude by the federal police agents that the American people must reject and not only when it applies to a particular President some want to shield.

1998 Ron Paul 125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.

1998 Ron Paul 125:22
It’s sad but there is another example of a most egregious abuse of presidential power, committed by the President, that has gotten no attention by the special prosecutors or the Congress. That is the attempt by the President to distract from the Monica Lewinsky testimony to the Grand Jury by bombing with cruise missiles both Sudan and Afghanistan, and the now current war against Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 125:23
Two hundred million dollars were spent on an illegal act of war against innocent people. The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was just that, a pharmaceutical plant, owned by a Muslim businessman who was standing up to the Islamic fundamentalists, the same people we pretend to oppose and use as scapegoats for all our Middle-Eastern policies. And now we have the controversial and unconstitutional waging of war in Iraq.

1998 Ron Paul 125:24
And to add insult to injury both military operations ordered by Clinton were quickly praised by the Republican leaders as good and necessary policy. These acts alone should be enough for a serious consideration of impeachment, but it’s never mentioned — mainly because leadership of both parties for decades have fully endorsed our jingoism and bellicosity directed toward other nations when they do not do our bidding.

1998 Ron Paul 125:25
Yes, the President’s tawdry affair and the acceptance of it to a large degree by the American people is not a good sign for us as a nation. But, let’s hope that out of this we have a positive result by recognizing the public’s rejection of the snooping actions of Big Brother. Let’s hope there’s a renewed interest in the Constitution and that Congress pays a lot more attention to it on a daily basis especially when it comes to waging war.

1998 Ron Paul 125:26
The fact that President Clinton will most likely escape removal from office I find less offensive than the Congress’s and the media’s lack of interest in dealing with the serious charges of flagrant abuse of power, threatening political revenge, issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders, sacrificing U.S. sovereignty to world government, bribery, and illegal acts of war, along with the routine flaunting of the constitutional restraints that were placed there to keep our government small and limited in scope.